Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: eskimo2 on October 29, 2002, 08:34:09 PM
-
Does it seem like multi-engine strategic bombers are being seen less and less in AH? I think they are.
Historically, bombers played a huge role in the air war during WWII. It’s hard to imagine a WWII flight sim without them.
In AH, there are 7 multi-engine strategic bombers. There are 54 other aircraft that play the fighter or attack roles, but these planes could be narrowed down to 27 base types. What this means is that multi-engine strategic bombers make up about 10 to 20% of the aircraft in the AH line-up depending on how you look at it. Considering that bombers take a lot more time and effort to model than fighters, I think it’s fair to say that HTC has spent at least 15% of it’s aircraft production time on multi-engine strategic bombers.
So how much are they used? It’s hard to say exactly, but we do have statistics on how many of each plane type are shot down per tour. The following list shows the percent of bombsight equipped multi-engine strategic bombers that are shot down compared to all aircraft (and vehicles) that are lost per tour. (B-17, B-26, Boston, Lanc, AR-234, JU-88, & KI-67)
In six month increments beginning with Tour 2:
Tour 2 – 8.6%
Tour 8 – 11.9%
Tour 14 – 10.4%
Tour 20 – 8.8%
Tour 26 – 8.3%
Tour 32 – 11.0%
It first appears that multi-engine strategic bomber use has remained relatively steady, and perhaps taken an upswing with the release of 1.10.
Unless you consider that when players fly and die in one bomber, they now typically fly and die in three at once. It’s anyone’s guess as to exactly what percent of bombers are flown in vics of three verses single ships, but it seems that the vast majority are flown in formation.
So I ask again,
Ver haff all zee bombers gone?
Unt, vat vill bring zem back?
eskimo
-
What's it with this poor, fake german accent writing? Is that supposed to be l33t or something? Should it add to the ambiance? Or are you ridiculing german speaking people?
:rolleyes:
-Amboss
-
Don't take offence Amboss, I'm sure he doesn't mean any harm. It's just fun! :D
Gunther Went ... I vander ver Gunther vent .. we valk und talk on ze moon ..ja? ;)
-
Perk every bomb over 250 lbs for single engine fitghters... no perk points if you don't survive the sortie and you will see more big fluffs.
lazs
-
The main reason I do very few bomber sorties any more is the way they explode like firecrackers.
Up with tthree B26s, grab to 20k and a Spitfare flys by...Boom! Boom! Boom!
Happens so often is a joke. Bout the only reason I even try anymore is just to use the bombsight....but that seems to happen very little due to the fragile nature of the damned bombers.
-
I don't bomb much since they put Rooks in the cockpits of the drones.
Couple days ago I decide to use up some bomber perks and fly the Arado. Not sure why; I can do more damage with a heavy fighter...
Roll down the runway, punch up the RATO, drones fall back and explode. There's 120 perks down the toilet...
Same day, up in an A20 for some silly reason, using it to cap one of the Bish's last fields. Vulching in an A20 is just so much fun. Anyway, someone ups a formation of B17s, so I roll into him. Only friendly aircraft around, but my TCA is 90 degrees. Pour fire into the lead aircraft, and as I fly over it and the second drone explode and I get credit for both. Kill one, get one free.
Bombers need a couple tweaks and some targets worthy of area bombing. Until then they're just not that important to the way things work.
-
You can't really do much damage in a buff formation anyway. So you destroy a fh, an ammo bunker and a gun position. Big deal. It literally has no effect on the war.
-
Best defense: Grab more alt, and don't be detected until absolutely nessesary.
Bombed bish HQ last night. 3 ship formation of B17's, climbed to 28k ft, and used the gaps in their radar cover to navigate to the shortest route from their radar cover to the HQ. Made a dash throug a port rather than an AF to avoid enemy interceptors upping and gaining visual contact with me. Once in their "backyard" blind zone I changed course so they couldn't predict my exact location, and navigated between their AF's radar cover. Made a single run on their HQ, knit had already been there once, I think I finished the job. Dashed out again and flew home. 1 hour trip, never saw a bandit, only a couple of con dots when I left the HQ scene, and I out ran them before they could make visual range (they were low). with 30 odd thousand feet and 300 ktas you can outfly or outdistance almost anything upping to get you.
-
All da bombers were at A11/A12, A15 area last night..I'd say every other flight was a bomber flight.
-
There is very little that the AH bomber can do that an AH attack plane can't do better.
-
There is very little that the AH bomber can do that an AH attack plane can't do better.
This is pretty much true with the way the bombers are now. One heavy jabo will clear a city and deack a field.
-
You can't really do much damage in a buff formation anyway. So you destroy a fh, an ammo bunker and a gun position. Big deal. It literally has no effect on the war.
Fuel bunker, ammo bunker, and the barracks. Pork fuel lightly, eliminate external ordnance, and keep them from running troops out of the field. Done at the right time, it can make a big difference.
-
Originally posted by Turbot
There is very little that the AH bomber can do that an AH attack plane can't do better.
Agreed. Targets are too small.
-
There needs to be a condition that only the bombers can meet, and right now there isn't. Without going into debates about the current strat system, there are ways of tweaking the MA to make bombers more useful. Since the bombsight is less accurate now, but anyone can up with 3x the amount of bombs, why not increase the size of the towns at airfields, and maybe toughen up the buildings a little? Just enough so that a 3-ship of bombers would be more useful than 1 or 2 jabo planes. This might slow down the rapid land grabbing that seems to happen most nights, if missions needed bombers instead of just typhoons.
PS. Am I the only one who thinks that .50 cal bullets or smaller shouldn't do ANY damage to a hardened aircraft shelter (hangars)?
-
Even cannon and rockets shouldn't damage a HARDENED A/C shelter.
-
Bombing is my business. That's what our squad does. Now here are the problems associated with level bombing:
1. Patience: most people in this game want fast, instant action, and lack the patience to climb to safe alt, and fly a 1 hour sortie.
2. Targets: Anything you can do in a heavy, can be done faster with greater accuracy in a JABO. HTC is in the process of making the field towns 4 times larger, and hopefully hardening the buildings.
3. Drones: There are bugs here. Lead A/C is destroyed, drones go into a death spiral, following the lead if you do not jump fast enough. If your in a gunner position, as one usually is when fending of fighters, you must jump to the pilots seat before you can bail/change planes. By this time, you've lost precious alt. Another bug, if one plane loses a gun, all 3 lose the same gun.
4: Poor ammo loadout: A b-17 is helpless when the tailgun is out of ammo. I suggested once before that pilots be allowed via a dot command to move ammo from one gun to another on the A/C as long as the guns use the same ammo. 10 second delay while ammo is transferred is fair.
5: Poor bomber durability: I do not kow how historically accurate these AC are as far as damage models, but they seem to be made of tissue paper.
6: Difficult base launchs: This only applies to the PIzza map, where many hihg alt fields are surrounded by hills and mountains, that a bomber cannot ascend. Also, many fields have hills around them that throw off the bombsight, causing extreme variance in the impact point.
7. Bombsight: Not as difficult as one may think to master, but daunting enough to keep would be bomber pilots away.
These are just some of the problems that immedietly sping to mind. I'm sure other seasoned bombers can add to this list.
And I think Lazs' idea of perking bombs for fighters would really help the situation. I'm not sure if he was serious, but I think it's a very good idea.
-
Muckmaw really said it all for me,those are the reasons I dont fly buffs anyore,now I use Mossies or Tiffies for attacking installations. :(
-
You said it mukmaw, I use to spend half my time in a bomber and thought it was great. Now I can only hit the target half the time. Can't do more damage with three bombers than I could with one. I do fly lower (10k)and slower which makes me a nice target. I find it is harder to gun now also from the bombers. Convergence plays a huge roll and the bomber you decide to gun out of.
-
Make the towns larger, more spread out and impervious to gunfire under 30mm calibre. Buff formations with smaller eggs and larger delays on their drop can then carpet bomb the town getting much better results than a Jabo fighter. It's gamey, but the whole concept of town destruction, put 10 troops in the map room for capture is gamey to begin with. :)
-
Originally posted by Shiva
Fuel bunker, ammo bunker, and the barracks. Pork fuel lightly, eliminate external ordnance, and keep them from running troops out of the field. Done at the right time, it can make a big difference.
The same can be accomplished in a heavy fighter much faster, and then you can stick around to kill the enemy.
To hit all those individual strat targets on a field, you have to make at least 3 bombing runs, calibrating for each run.. way too much time.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Make the towns larger)
Surely you already know this is already planned right?
-
Muck hit all the biggies.
Sometimes I climb real high...sometimes I try the mid alts. Anything lower and you get torn up fast.
I've traded in my Ar234 and Lanc runs for P-47 runs or Fw190-A8 runs...love that potatoe-gun 30mm.
Its a sad day when I have boo-koo more fighter perks than bomber ones! :eek:
-
I used to fly buffs almost exclusively in WB. Some of the high altitude encounters were great, and the scenarios were awesome.
Buffs seem "silly" in AH.
1) Defensive gunnery lacks realism (a real bomber has mulitple, manned positions) It's just silly to give up all your defenses so you can make a bombing run. To be realistic the buff should be modeled with a reasonably skilled crew.
2) The formations of 3 are just silly. It's just too bogus for me to even want to take them up.
I can live with a more realistic gunsight and carpet bombing. Unfortunately the other aspects of bombers in AH are not setup in a way that makes me want to return to that part of game play.
-
We also run the heavy missions and although the bombing has become a little tougher since the 1.10 mods, I find it more satisfying to see that "Building destroyed" or "Fighter Hanger destroyed" messages.
Of all the issues discussed, I think town/building hardness frustrates me the most. It was just a couple of nights ago that I answered a call to arms that Rook HQ was under attack. I climb in a G10 to grab like crazy for what I thought would be high B17s or Lancs trying to drop HQ. As I arrived, I find clear skies above and about 3-4 Me110s strafing the stuff down :rolleyes:.
Unfortunately, until there are targets that only bombers can destroy, a heavy fighter will be the choice of many. Heck, a couple of light Typhoons work just as well. So go ahead and put the Komet at HQ for "special defense" HTC, I just hope they are good on the deck.
BTW... a weather alert for you... Hell has officially frozen over as I'm agreeing with Laz and the perk ordinance idea. :D
-
1)Bombers can carry a gunner to assist when on the bomb run, no thanks if the idea of AI gunners is being floated (the best idea I have seen is an auto check6 to alert a lone pilot)
2) Why would anyone expect an unescorted bomber to last long in any enviorment with enemy fighters?
-
While Lazs' suggestion would help the situation, Niffty's suggestion is the best one I've seen so far (and one I've made on more than one occasion). I'd go one farther and suggest that anything smaller than a 37-mm be ineffective against large structures and ammo bunkers (because these are hardened targets). Fighters could still carry bombs and rockets, but would be much less effective against towns, cities, hangers, and strat-targets in general. Once its bombs/rockets were gone, a fighter would be completely ineffective against these larger and harder targets. Then, the greater ordnance weight of the heavies would come into its own as the weapon of choice for heavy-duty mud-moving. Couple this with larger field-towns and strat-targets, and you give the heavies back their role in AH.
-
i dont fly the big bombers because the most im gonna get befpore i get shot down is one hanger and i can get that in a JABO with a 38
lancaster is always fun though if they base is completely ignored by everyone on all teams
-
You could do any of a combination of things but for now... the simplest solution is to perk bombs over 250lbs and make it so that you only got fighter bomb perks for a sortie you survived.
I have allways asked for huge cities for the fluffs to carpet bomb but that might take a while and be hard to do..
lazs
-
I really don't know abything about programming, but how hard could it be to just quadruple the size of the cities we have now?
It's not like HTC would need to program new graphics. I'd imagine the only place where it would be bothersome is fitting cities that currently rest on a hill, etc.
I like the idea of the Perked Bombs. Anything to end the reign of the suicide jabo would be an improvement in my book.
-
Harden the hangers (so that only 500lb and up will even damage them), quad the size of the town and harden the buildings, then perk heavy JABO bombs and you have nicely solved the insta-cap raid. Pretty much have to coordinate your heavy bombers, jabos, top cover, and goons.
Problem is will whether or not this would cost HTC too many gamers for the benifit of the simmers.
-
I'd go one farther and suggest that anything smaller than a 37-mm be ineffective against large structures and ammo bunkers
There's a much more realistic way to deal with it, but it involves looking at ammunition types.
1) Solid-shot weapons -- machine guns and AP rounds -- are going to punch nice, round holes in things if they penetrate, but even with a light wooden-framed house, it's going to take a lot of 3" diameter holes to even have a chance of knocking down a house. Machine guns should not damage structures. AP rounds might be able to damage a house if they can hit something sufficiently structural -- not likely, maybe 1% chance every hit. There's one exception, though -- fuel tanks. An AP round is going to punch right through the tank and start a leak; any tracer round hitting a fuel tank with a leak, or any round striking a spark off the tank, would cause the tank to ignite and burn. (Actually, ammo bunkers would be an exception, too, but in the other way; the earth berm typically raised over the concrete shell of an ammo bunker would stop penetration of an AP round.)
2) Burst-effect weapons -- all weapons that carry a bursting charge for their primary effect -- have their blast effect applied against the structure's integrity; when the integrity reaches 0, the structure collapses. The blast effect is proportional to the weight of the bursting charge, and diminishes according to the cube of the miss distance.
A town building requires a 250-lb bomb to destroy it. HE bombs typically had about half their weight as a bursting charge, so the bursting charge will be about 125 pounds. The US 37mm M54 HE projectile had a bursting charge of 0.1 pounds; in order to get the same accumulated blast effect as one 250-lb bomb, it would take 1250 37mm shells. You can extrapolate for sturdier buildings.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be unpopular, as it pretty much castrates the Ostwind as a tool to take down a town for capture. On the other hand, in the pictures I've seen from WWII, where ground troops are moving through a destroyed built-up area, the destruction has been caused by either aerial bombing or bombardment by heavy artillery -- not by a light FlaK gun.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Perk every bomb over 250 lbs for single engine fitghters... no perk points if you don't survive the sortie and you will see more big fluffs.
lazs
(Sigh)
I never thought we would see the day that Lazs would make a suggestion that would INCREASE bomber use.
That alone speaks volumes.
eskimo
-
What lazs said.
-
Lazs has the right idea, but goes too far in one way and not far enough in another way.
500lb bombs were commonly carried by fighters in WWII. Therefore I'd say that 500lb bombs and lighter should be free.
On the other hand, I see no reason to distingish between single engined fighters and twin engined fighters. P-38's, for example, carried 500lb bombs far more commonly than they carried 1,000lb bombs.
Couple the perking of 1,000lb bombs with the elimination of damage to town buildings, factories, hangers and hardend targets by any gun smaller than 40mm (eliminate the Ostwind as a base killer at the same time) and heavy bombers suddenly have a purpose again.
-
karnak.. that is fine with me.. I don't know enough about how bombs or even battling buildings works in AH to say. The main point would be tho that once they were perked the perk value could be adjusted to stop gameplay ruining behavior.
eskimo... I am not saying anything that is inconsistent. I still don't want fluffs ruining the game. I like the fact that a large fluff can't lazer bomb vital gameplay targets anymore and ruin the fun of dozens of guys... Now all we have to do is close a few more loopholes of the talentless.
lazs
-
Laz's and Karnak's suggestions would really start to balance the arena far more than it is today. In fact, the MA seems to be almost AW "big pork"like, especially with the Pizza Map (a great map with 700 people im sure, but not with 400 or less IMO.)
Each platform would have a distinct purpose, like it did in RL, and you would have to see some degree of coordination and cooperation to take a base. It would present the win the war crowd with a change comprable to what the the bombsight adjustment was to bomber pilots. IMO, not a bad thing. The current capture mechanism has been way too gamey, at least for me, all the way back to AW DOS days. It would even make milkrunning much more of a challenge. Taking out a carrier would also be more of a challenge.
However, the whinestorm would be of epic porportions :) Or would it? People seem to have adapted rather quickly to the new bombing system.
Great ideas.
Charon
[edit: Here's an additional suggestion. Require land capture for bases on plains type terraine to integrate the land war. Troops could still be air dropped to take mountain bases. That give the Jabos more of a tactical air mission related to the "war."]
-
Lazs is not saying anything inconsistent with his gamestyle.
He could care less about the Bombers. What is bugging him now are the suicide jabos that have replaced the heavies as field killers.
Kill a field, and you kill Lazs idea of fun....mindless quake style furball. Hey that's what he enjoys. More power to him. There are plenty like him.
So don't kid yourself. Lazs is not trying to help anyone's playstyle or game experience but his own. His suggestion of perking bombs on Jabos will do what? Lower the number of fields being porked by jabos. Less Jabos=less porked fields=more places to launch from=less time flying, more time furballing=Lazs' idea of a great time.
It just so happens in this case, that we are on the same page, in that Jabo's and Osti's should not be able to replace Heavy bombers.
-
muck.... i freely admitted as much. I make no claims toward altruism or even charity. What I want is variety, parity and choice. I do not want it to be to easy for the talentless to have an "effect" on the gameplay of others. If they have very little talent then they should have very little effect on gameplay...
I am not very talented either but.... I have to work at ruining someones fun... even then... I can only ruin one persons fun at a time and I put as much or more effort and skill forth as my opponent.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Amboss
What's it with this poor, fake german accent writing? Is that supposed to be l33t or something? Should it add to the ambiance? Or are you ridiculing german speaking people?
:rolleyes:
-Amboss
A little Sensitive are we?!
-
Define for me, exactly, whom you consider to be "Talentless" Lazs.
-
ht said he was going to make the towns and strat larger. If any of you have the new terrain editor the new objects are there (I assume that the new ones are them).
I working on a map right now that has even larger strat objects. But when tested and overflown at 5k the frame rate drop will be intolerable for lo end users. Add in multiple bomb blasts and ack and lo end userd cpus might explode.
Theres very little wrong with bombers right now. Turbot posted an image a while back of him hitting from 33k. All bombs with in the target square.
I personally care very little about bombers outside of scenarios. But bomber pilots still do the same dweeb things they did before the new model. I watched 3 groups of lancasters fly in at 4 k over a fleet then repeat until they landed enough to kill it. Bombers are and have always been the biggest dweeb magnet in ah. No la7 or spit or 51 has the impact the a few ack starring suicide bomber dweebs have. Suicide jabos have always been a part of ah. But with numbers above 350 there are just so many more that now their impact on gameplay overshadows the fluffers.
I would be all for adjusting town and strat object hardeness. I am all for larger and moere abundant strat objects. But it will get to the point where the minimum requirements for ah will have to be increased.
where have all the fluffers gone? Who the hell cares.......Now we need to send the suicide jabos in the same direction.
-
Here we go again. :rolleyes:
Lazs-
I was looking at your scores, and the numbers you put up in the FM2 are incredible.
I noticed that you got 25 kills of LA7's. Were these snapshots, or did they generally make the mistake of turn fighting you?
Also, I've noticed you have yet to kill a pony this tour. To what do you attribute this?
I guess what I'm saying is you managed to kill 25 fast planes of 1 type, and none of the other. Are the ponies more inclined to run than fight? I would think the 51 would be a newbie plane, and would be more inclined to make the mistake of turn fighting an FM2.
You should consider setting up a page like MATHMAN did for the F6F.
-
hmm... was sure I got a pony or three... I am not very good tho.
most of my kills on La7's are simple reversals. They come in hot behind me and I get a snapshot as they go by. some of my kills of other planes are vultchs but not many vultchs of la7's on the runway for some reason.
I believe that I kill so many La7's because there are so many out there.
I am amazed that more people don't fly the FM2 when it is such an easy plane to kill in. even i can do it.
lazs
-
muck... i consider riding a bomb into the FH or CV as being "talentless" in the context of this thread.
lazs
-
I think I'm starting to warm up to Lazs. In this thread alone he's made a suggestion that would effectively increase the use and importance of bombers, and then someone points out that he collects El-Gay-Seven scalps.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him driving a goon soon.
:)
eskimo
-
On Puck's observation of killing one B-17 and getting the second free: What happens is when the first bomber dies, the second bomber jumps forward into the same space filled by the first bomber and starts taking hits. You don't have to adjust you aim to hit the second bomber if you get an instant kill (explosion) on the first bomber. You may be able to get all three bombers this way.
I agree with Puck that we need targets worthy of bombing. Don't want to see them decrease the effectiveness of the JABO or perk bombs or make targets harder to make the bomber more important - just make more targets. Currently, a single, fully loaded, P-47 has more than enough firepower to knock a town down. Instead of robbing the 47 of its ability to (or fun in) destroy a building, just make the towns with more buildings then a single P-47 can destroy. Apparently, according to muckmaw, HTC is in the process of doing this with field towns. I would also like to see this done with the fields. For example, have 3 FH clustered together in a group and have several widely spaced groups on a field. Now, if this causes a big hit in frame rate like Wotan suggests, go ahead and make the targets harder; but also make them bigger so we can get more bombs on them with the delay set at 0.05 - would like to be able to destroy a harden target with a single pass of the bomber. (I don't even want to get started here on salvo vs. ripple modes of bombing.)
It is interesting to note that these same discussions over Bomber vs. JABO have been going on since the airplane was first conceived as a weapon. What would the outcome of WWII have been if, instead of a thousand plane bomber raid on a strategic target, there where 10 thousand JABOs? The outcome would not have been as good as the fighter advocates might think. The aspect of the bomber that was important in WWII was its range. Fighters couldn't even reach the strategic targets. So even if a whole group of bombers could only manage to get a single 500 ponder on the target, it was 500 lbs more than the entire fighter force could do. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, range is not a factor in AH and thus negating an import aspect of the bomber. The only thing that is important in AH is the ability to inflect damage. As muckmaw pointed out in his list of bomber problems, that advantage to do that damage currently goes to the JABOs.
-
I don't collect la7 scalps so much but... there are a lot of em out there. The 51, d9 and are amoung the most timid planes in the game and very fast. the la is very fast too but...
The la can't snapshoot and.... it accelerates and climbs very well. The La needs to saddle up to get a kill. Most of my assists are on 51's and D9's who take the snapshot at very high speed with little change in direction.... I have a very small window after the overshoot to get a shot in.... The lag will stay low because he can turn a little and relies on his monster acceleration and climb.
most underestimate the the climb, smash, dive and snapshot abilities of the FM2. like the -1a.... it is like cheating to fly one... otherwise I couldn't do it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Perk every bomb over 250 lbs for single engine fitghters... no perk points if you don't survive the sortie and you will see more big fluffs.
lazs
Now there is an awsome idea !!!!
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Make the towns larger, more spread out and impervious to gunfire under 30mm calibre. Buff formations with smaller eggs and larger delays on their drop can then carpet bomb the town getting much better results than a Jabo fighter. It's gamey, but the whole concept of town destruction, put 10 troops in the map room for capture is gamey to begin with. :)
I agree.
...:)
-
"Make the towns larger, more spread out and impervious to gunfire under 30mm calibre. Buff formations with smaller eggs and larger delays on their drop can then carpet bomb the town getting much better results than a Jabo fighter. "
And impervious to Osties too!!!
J_A_B
-
I don't mind perks for keeping the numbers down on some of the better planes... but...
I shudder at the idea of turnin' the hanger visit into some old-school Wheel of Fortune shopping spree every time I wanna load out my plane.
"Yes, Pat, I'll take the 250's for 3 and gimme a couple of 1000's for 10".
"Excellent choice Nash, and of course you landed on the bonus, which means we'll be attaching these exquisite items onto your BRAND NEW TEMPEST!"
I hate shopping... and I hate looking at my bank statements for that matter. I'd rather not think about this stuff when I play AH. Just make bombs and hardness realistic if ya wanna fix the problem.
-
They still don't solve the problem if the buildings are still made of paper mache. A 110G2 or P47 with all the guns will still be able to take down most, if not all, of the town without even using their ordinance. The only thing that bullets should damage on the ground are ack and fuel tanks, and maybe radar.
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
They still don't solve the problem if the buildings are still made of paper mache. A 110G2 or P47 with all the guns will still be able to take down most, if not all, of the town without even using their ordinance.
...and a Panzer cannot.
-
I'd like to see more tactical bombing.
i.e. med bombers bombing airfields and towns from med alts.
B17s and Lancs shouldn't be seen doing that stuff. They're for strategic bombing (cities, factories HQ)
HTC should somhow encourage these bombers to play these roles, and encourage more people to fly bombers in the first place. How? I dunno. I pay them to figure this stuff out, but they could start by rewritting the damage model.
-
With dweebs flying Jabo Lancaster formations at 2K above an airfield to kill FHs, what do you think will happen when the towns get bigger with harder sturctures?
I can see the text in channel 2 now;
"Somebody up some lancs and jabo the town at A11"
Come on, you can't see that comming? Great for furballers I guess.
Bigger strat targets like Cities which change the win conditions are what's needed:
5 Cities less than 20%, 6 Airfields left, The war has been won.
Fun for the bombers and fun for the guys who like to join Hazed fighter sweep missions.
-
Lots of good ideas in this thread so far. I especially like the concept of making buildings less susceptible to damage by gunfire. I can’t say that I agree that they should be “impervious” to even 50 caliber fire, but it should be GREATLY reduced. Perhaps a single .50 round should be reduced down to ¼ (or so) of a pound of explosives. It would then take about 1,000 50 cal hits to down a city or town building. Sounds realistic to me.
(A jug driver with perfect aim would only be able to kill 3 buildings.)
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Lots of good ideas in this thread so far. I especially like the concept of making buildings less susceptible to damage by gunfire. I can’t say that I agree that they should be “impervious” to even 50 caliber fire, but it should be GREATLY reduced. Perhaps a single .50 round should be reduced down to ¼ (or so) of a pound of explosives. It would then take about 1,000 50 cal hits to down a city or town building. Sounds realistic to me.
(A jug driver with perfect aim would only be able to kill 3 buildings.)
eskimo
Eh... realistic? 1000 .50 rounds destroy a building? I'll tell you one thing Eskimo2, I've served in Bosnia and I know from personal experience that the M2HB, even with MP2 ammo, is only good for two things: maiming infantry and punching small holes in light armor. Realistically it would take hundreds of thousands .50 caliber rounds to destroy a single one-story house. If it was so powerful as you think, I don't understand why tanks need main guns. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
They still don't solve the problem if the buildings are still made of paper mache. A 110G2 or P47 with all the guns will still be able to take down most, if not all, of the town without even using their ordinance. The only thing that bullets should damage on the ground are ack and fuel tanks, and maybe radar.
Right on the money!
-
Tour 2 – 8.6%
Tour 8 – 11.9%
Tour 14 – 10.4%
Tour 20 – 8.8%
Tour 26 – 8.3%
Tour 32 – 3.7% (11.0% Divided by 3 because of formations)
This isn't exactly accurate because of confoundment with C47s and naval bombers, but that 3.7% is quite shocking none the less.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
...and a Panzer cannot.
True True. 75HE is rather weak or we have some damn strong town buildings.
-
75HE is rather weak or we have some damn strong town buildings.
Well, if it takes a 250-lb bomb to blow a town building, then since most blast-effect bombs had a bursting charge of about half the weight of the bomb, that means that it takes 125 lbs of high explosive to blow the building. A 75mm HE shell has, IIRC, about 5 pounds of explosive as a bursting charge. Since it takes less than 25 rounds from a Panzer to kill a town building, I'd say you're getting a bargain.
Requiring 2500 pounds of bombs to destroy a hangar is a game-balance mechanism; clearly, the relatively light construction of the typical aircraft hangar could be destroyed by relatively small bombs; however, making aircraft activity dependent on the survival of the hangars requires that hangars be made hard enough that it takes some work to destroy a hangar.
-
Originally posted by AtmkRstr
Tour 2 – 8.6%
Tour 8 – 11.9%
Tour 14 – 10.4%
Tour 20 – 8.8%
Tour 26 – 8.3%
Tour 32 – 3.7% (11.0% Divided by 3 because of formations)
This isn't exactly accurate because of confoundment with C47s and naval bombers, but that 3.7% is quite shocking none the less.
"The following list shows the percent of bombsight equipped multi-engine strategic bombers that are shot down compared to all aircraft (and vehicles) that are lost per tour. (B-17, B-26, Boston, Lanc, AR-234, JU-88, & KI-67) "
That's why I didn't include navy and dive bombers (and goons).
The exception is the Ju-88/Jack-of-all-trades Level, dive, and torp bomber.
The point is still the same though: bomber use has dropped significantly.
eskimo