Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MRPLUTO on May 06, 2003, 06:43:20 PM
-
Since bombers in real life couldn't hit much of anything from above 30k, why not have a second wind layer at 30K moving in a direction different from the lower layer. Anyone bombing from above 30K would be adjusting only for the wind layer they are flying in. When the bombs hit the lower wind layer they would begin to be blown off course.
This would discourage people from flying at dweebishly hi altitudes. Recently, I saw Ki-67s flying at about 33,000 feet. This was a plane designed to be used around 20,000 feet. At 33K, it's meager bombload would have been very inaccurate, its gunners incapacitated by cold, and its guns frozen and useless.
I hope that in AH2 gun positions will become useless if pilots fly for long periods of time above 30k or so.
Alt Monkeys, what say you?
:D
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
Why do you care?
Bombers are already ineffective against the current targets, and it's not like they auto-spawn at 30+k, it takes them a LONG time to get there, sometimes over an hour.
So again, why do you care?
-
If anyone takes the time to climb to 33k in a Buff its for one reason; they want to get to their target area safely. They have a better than even chance of making it to the target and surviving at hi alts than making low alt runs. Comparatively, there are few alt dweeb fiter pilots who spend a lot of time at 33k simply because there aint nobody up there to fight. Hmmm, come to think of it, thats prolly why some do fly that high, so they can be safe:rolleyes:
Buffers have just as much right to try to fight the way they prefer as fiter jocks do, so I say let em be.
Buffing is difficult as hell as it is, to do it well that is. IMO it is unreasonable to criticize them for doing what is natural for a buffer as, TnB or BnZ is for fiter jocks.
If Hi alt buffers bother you that much, then get on up there where they are and stop em:D
-
Why do I care?
1. Because, as AH is set up, people are taking advantage of unrealistic aspects of the game to "game the game". You may be familiar with the "car bomb" problem involving people driving planes (usually IL-2's) into paratroopers as a last ditch effort to save a base from capture back when the map room was right at the field. It was solved by moving the map room to a slightly distant town.
2. Also, because as someone who enjoys hunting buffs (not necessarily in Uber-planes), I do find it annoying to spend time climbing to meet the incoming foe only to find he's at 33, 34, even 35K. For the record, as an avid buff pilot, I rarely fly above 25k, and can't remember the last time I was above 26k in a buff.
*******
Bombers ARE effective against current targets. Employed with even some forethought they do make a difference. Try flying from a country who's bases take forever to get rejuvinated.
Buffing isn't that hard; certainly it's much, much easier to hit something from above 30K in AH than in real life, where it was next to impossible. (Think of Curtis LeMay ordering the B-29s down to 9K over Tokyo so they could hit the target, for a change.)
It does take a long time to climb to 30K+, but I assume these people do what I do when I climb to 25K; we eat a snack, take a quick shower; make phone calls. Don't laugh...I've heard other buff pilots do this, too!
Don, I do agree buff pilots have a right to fight the battle their way, but I'd rather they not be allowed to take advantage of unrealistic aspects of AH to gain unhistorical advantages, at least without giving up things like bombing accuracy and operable gun positions. For example, you may have noticed that although in real life it would be possible to shoot buff guns while on the runway, you can't in AH. Why? Because people would (and did) just park buffs on the runways as deadly flak positions. It was very silly and unrealistic. Well, buffs flying at 33k and hitting thier target easily without having their gunners or guns freeze seems silly and unrealistic to me.
MRPLUTO
-
ehhhh, sounds like you want the game changed to suit your personal taste and style. Probably not a good idea. I would personally prefer to see gv's gone, irritating things, like termites. However, they are a part of the game just as much as the 30k buff guys, added all together they make the game more diverse and interesting. Nothing like that pucker factor you get when something you don't expect happens like coming home on vapors only to find gv's on the runway! or when you find that 1 enemy in 3 sectors, only he is at 30k!
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Bombers ARE effective against current targets. Employed with even some forethought they do make a difference. Try flying from a country who's bases take forever to get rejuvinated.
This is true
Buffing isn't that hard; certainly it's much, much easier to hit something from above 30K in AH than in real life, where it was next to impossible. (Think of Curtis LeMay ordering the B-29s down to 9K over Tokyo so they could hit the target, for a change.)
LeMay ordered the buffs that low for two (2) reasons
1. The bombers would not need as much fuel to climb to alt saving weight for more bombs.
2. The Jetstream. It is kinda hard to fly 300 MPH North West when you are being blown South East 150-200 MPH
It does take a long time to climb to 30K+, but I assume these people do what I do when I climb to 25K; we eat a snack, take a quick shower; make phone calls.
SHHHH!!! That is a state secret!
Don, I do agree buff pilots have a right to fight the battle their way, but I'd rather they not be allowed to take advantage of unrealistic aspects of AH to gain unhistorical advantages, at least without giving up things like bombing accuracy and operable gun positions.
Bombing from altitude is difficult, and not as accurate as bombing from a lower altitude. That is realistic, historical, and portrayed in the game the best that Hitech can.
Historicaly Buffs started out at 10-12k. This gave them phenominal accuracy, just like your stating we have now. We also have the same problems of operating at that altitude, enemy fighters can easily get to 15k in practically no time. So I see no reason to penalise people for flying at 30-35k. They take the time to climb there because they want to return to base with their virtual lives, and give up on the pickle barrel and go for the ballpark. Also that is what P-47, Spit IX, Bf 109 G-10, Fw 190-D, Ta 152's are for. Getting hi with the performance to kill the buffs at that altitude
MRPLUTO [/B]
-
bockko,
When you make statements like that you need to back them up with facts...like I did. I pointed out that what was going on was highly unrealistic and explained why, suggesting that it be changed for more realism and better gameplay. To reduce my argument to simple selfishness and "probably not a good idea" [without explaining why] does nothing to make whatever point you might have.
By the way, I can deal with 30K buffs; my complaint was against the 30K+ alt monkeys. I've intercepted bombers that were at 35-36K.
*******
BlackCross,
There were three reasons LeMay ordered the B-29s lower:
the two you gave, and the one I gave: they couldn't hit stuff 'cause of the altitude (and the winds at those alts).
*******
People should pay a penalty for flying at ultra-high alts: much lower bombing accuracy and frozen people and things. That is historical. If you want to fly at 30K+ to avoid enemy fighters, then you must suffer ALL the consequences of flying that high, good and bad.
MRPLUTO
-
P.S. to BlackCross:
Thanks for letting me know you agreed with me sometimes, and I'm sorry about the state secret.
MRPLUTO
-
I see bombers rarely and I can't remember the last time I saw a bomber over 20,000ft that wasn't piloted by me or a squad mate.
Is this really that much of a problem?
No.
There are far, far bigger gameplay issues than this.
-
Is this really that much of a problem?
No.
There are far, far bigger gameplay issues than this.
..
So?
We supposed to post only the mega-important super gameplay threatening issues here?
-
It's not a major problem, but it is a problem. And one that's easily solved, I think.
MRPLUTO
-
So i do agree that buffs couldnt hit much at hi alts. To simulate real tactics would require several hundred of us to fly buffs in tight formation, which is not going to happen (in the interest of game play). The subject of this thread hits at the nature of "simulating" real life events. So while bombing from 35k with a single bomber would be totally ineffective, bombing in general must be simulated through a set of compromises in program modeling. I have come to the belief that if a guy wants to alt a buff to 30+k, more power to him! It is not worth my limited time to go get him, yet I don't see a need to change the game to penalize him any more than penalizing other facets of game play that have modeling compromises.
Now, not sure, but I would bet the overriding reason Lemay was able to order buffs lower was because 1) fighter resistance was essentially nonexistant and 2) any fighters that showed up were sure to be destroyed.
Mr pluto, i see your point, yet there are many gray lines where reality and the game diverge...anyway, my two cents..
enjoy gents :)
-
As long as the fighters have to sit in thier cockpits on the ground for 4 hours waiting for buffs to come I think this would be a great idea.
If you want to be available to intercept buffs you have to commit to an airfield for a 4 hour stint. In the plane.
That would be more realistic and stop the totaly unrealistic "gameing the game" behavior or waiting till a dot shows up on dar telleporting to a near by field and taking off instantly in an interceptor with 1/2 fuel.
It would be easy to implement, fro more realistic and would be much more fair to the bombers. They could bomb from reasonable alt and have a higher sorti rate to boot.
-
PONGO! that avatar....that la7.....whine....cry...its just, well don't know what to say, its hilarious!
-
Well let me say this with respect to bombing altitudes. The B17's BEST operational altitude is 30,000 ft. It was designed for high altitude precision bombardment. The bomb modeling is relatively accurate when a good hit was considered any bomb that hit within 1,000 ft of the aiming point. Why do you think the Germans developed the Me163? Precisely for point defense at high altitude against American bomber streams.
Your third reason regarding the "LeMay" treatment is a byproduct of the previously mentioned "jetstream" reason. Bombs falling through 150-300 mph winds are generally NOT going to hit anywhere near where they were aimed at. Again, the bombing model that we have here is as near as can be gotten to real life (from those bombardiers I've talked to personally) Lastly, in the "real life" bomber stream, only two bombers per group carried a Norden bombsight. Every other bomber in the formation would drop it's bombs when the lead, or deputy lead bomber released his. Damage inflicted by sheer tonnage dropped, not by pickle barrel precision bombardment. So you see that 30k+ bombers are not unrealistic and if you read combat reports you'll see that there do exist missions where the operational altitude was 30k+. The B17 was, overall, a very minor player in the Pacific war so the modeling of the aircraft, it's performance, bombload and accuracy are based on an ETO basis.
I do agree that 30k+ Ki67's are a little drastic though. Not only were they not designed for that altitude, I doubt they could've reached and maintained it for very long if at all.
OORAH
-
A good fighter can reach 30k in a very short time when compared to a buff....we are talking 1/5th the time in many cases. Even at a modest 2500 fpm, 30k is only 12 minutes away.......there are many planes that do it in about 8, and a few that take even less time. A good 30k buff run is a 45+ minute exercise.....and hangers stay down for a whopping 15 minues....wow...thats just so impressive
Sure fuel stays down longer....but most buff runs dont aim for fuel......thats a JABO issue isnt it :D
You want to whine about gaming the game...please explain to me why you can identify the difference between a F4UC and F4U4 from 3 miles away
(http://www.combathanger.com/signature-new.gif) (http://www.combathanger.com)
-
The KI-67s max altitude was just under 32K, and it’s optimal altitude was at 20k.
The B-17 depending on the model had a max altitude between 35-37k. Most missions were flown between 20-25K. For a short time they did fly missions between 12-15K because it was thought that they needed to get lower for more accuracy. Due to heavy loss rates at the lower altitudes, it was decided to return to the higher level for bombing.
You say you want more accuracy for the Buffs? Name me one level bomber that had only one man operating the complete aircraft. In another flight sim who’s name I will not mention, it takes two to make a bomb run. A pilot, and a bombardier. The bomb sight is simply calibrated by entering the speed and altitude. This does not make for laser guided bombs and makes it as difficult as what we have now. But if your looking for realism, then guns should be manned by a crew and not laser guided by one man. Personally I have no problem with the buffs. While a few have gotten good at using them, most have not. There is no where near the amount of bombers flying now as there were before the change. So just leave the buff drivers alone and let them enjoy the game the way they like it. Otherwise lets talk about the 30K+ Zeros, La-7s, and just about every other fighter that flies that high that normally didn’t fly above 15K. Where is the realism in that? Oh and lets not forget the lone C-47 dropping 10 troops to capture a field or the never ending aircraft spawning from a base that is under attack. Now that is really realistic for sure.
You have the right to your own opinion and to express it, but if a buff driver, or Zeke pilot like to fly at 30K+ then let them. Who cares! I sure don’t! I amazes me just how much whining goes on, and just how much this game has changed because of it. But if it’s realism you want then HTC should up the flight model to make it totally realistic. As it stands right now the FM is not very realistic any ways. It’s just a game, and everyone pays good money to enjoy themselves for a short while. HTC has more important things to worry about then some guy in a KI-67 flying 30K+. Enjoy yourself and just let people have fun.
-
I havent seen hi alt buffs for a long time. Most buffs today are very low making suicide runs to enemy field.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
bockko,
When you make statements like that you need to back them up with facts...like I did. I pointed out that what was going on was highly unrealistic and explained why, suggesting that it be changed for more realism and better gameplay.
By the way, I can deal with 30K buffs; my complaint was against the 30K+ alt monkeys. I've intercepted bombers that were at 35-36K.
MRPLUTO
Although I don't really agree with your reasoning I think a second wind layer would be fun. I could add some additional challenges and I would be willing to put up with it IF some of the other HIGHLY unrealistic issues were dealt with, for example:
1) When I'm calibrating the bomb site, I should either have AI gunners manning the gun positions or at the very least a warning from a simulated gunner that a high alt fighter monkey was sneaking up my tail.
2) When my bombs, having traveled through both wind layers hit something they should damage it. So if I rain bombs all over the runways, takeoffs on those runways should be suspended. If I hit the tower with a couple tons of bombs, I should score a kill on all those tower monkeys hanging out there.
3) When my guns accedently spray a friendly escort fighter who is chasing a con, it shouldn't blow me out of the sky.
That doesn't even deal with many of the unrealistic advantages fighters enjoy at lower alts. The thing is you can't just effect the gaming reality of people who like to fly in a way that you don't. It doesn't really matter what the flight characteristics of the real planes were the only reality that matter here is that this is a game, people are paying money to have fun so why not let them.
-
if a buff pilot has the patience to climb to 30k and the skill to hit effectively from there - so be it!.
the divebuffs are much less realistic. I really give respect to those few buff pilots who use the plane as a level bomber and bomb through the sights.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by ALF
Sure fuel stays down longer....but most buff runs dont aim for fuel......thats a JABO issue isnt it :D
Actually, when I'm setting up a high-alt buff run on a field, I look at the field layout and see what targets I can take out with various ingress lines; with a B-17, I generally look for a route that will let me hit four targets, whether they're hangars, ammo, fuel, radar, or barracks -- at least one hangar, because that makes it easier to get the proper line set up, but because you don't get any real effect from blowing one or two hangars at a field, getting the support targets like ammo, fuel, and barracks get a higher priority for me. And it's more satisfying to see the columns of black smoke rising behind me, anyway. :D
-
Originally posted by Pongo
As long as the fighters have to sit in thier cockpits on the ground for 4 hours waiting for buffs to come I think this would be a great idea.
If you want to be available to intercept buffs you have to commit to an airfield for a 4 hour stint. In the plane.
That would be more realistic and stop the totaly unrealistic "gameing the game" behavior or waiting till a dot shows up on dar telleporting to a near by field and taking off instantly in an interceptor with 1/2 fuel.
It would be easy to implement, fro more realistic and would be much more fair to the bombers. They could bomb from reasonable alt and have a higher sorti rate to boot.
no reply from mr pluto. His complaint was so well thought out I was sure he would have a goor reply to this. Oh well.
-
Hi, Pongo
Sorry I wasn't quick to reply...just been busy.
I think you're taking things to an absurd length to try and make a point. But to take your point seriously, I'd challenge it by suggesting that if fighters had to do all those things, then most buffs should only be available on fields far from the front requiring round-trip flights of 5 to 8 hours.
Also, the radar would have to give the approximate altitude of the buffs and at a much longer range than we have now.
So there are many things that are unrealistic about AH. I would point out, though, that teleporting to a field when dots appear on dar does not cause any unrealistic situation to develop. In real life, someone would up and intercept incoming bombers sighted on radar. And that what happens, even though the pilot teleported to his take off field.
MRPLUTO'S ARGUMENT EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF YIN & YANG
First of all, Yin & Yang are not "good & evil"; they are opposites. When they get out of balance, problems result. All behavior or decisions made by combat pilots have consequences. Some are good consequences, some are bad consequences. If a certain behavior [i.e. flying buffs at 35K] only has good consequences for the bomber pilot, then we have an imbalance. By flying very, very high they are out of range of all flak, and very difficult to intercept (see below for more on this argument). However, what have they had to sacrifice in order to keep the cosmic balance :confused:
The only "sacrifice" is the time spent climbing to alt on autopilot, during which they probably do something else like eat or shower.
Accuracy is still not a problem for any competent bombardier. No gun positions or gunners will freeze up or die.
There must be a downside to climbing to 35k besides having the opportunity to do your laundry!
My suggestions would just restore a wee bit of cosmic balance to AH. That's all I'm asking for! :p
*******
TheCage:
Your argument seems to be that because other aspects of buffing aren't realistic (one guy doing all the work; 10 troops parachuting onto a field and capturing it) then my point should be dismissed. Clearly, there is no logic in that.
By the way, the problem is not just "some guy in a Ki-67 at 30K+". It's more and more people. And it's easily solved, I think.
*******
ALF
THE DIFFICULTY OF FIGHTING BUFFS AT EXTREMELY HIGH ALT
Although most fighters can get to the low 30Ks fast, it's what happens (or can't happen) at that alt.
At 34K most planes are not at their top performance, both in terms of speed and manuverability. All but the most gentle flying will cause many planes to lose precious altitude. And try aiming as your plane claws its way through the thin air.
Sure you can climb above the bombers and zoom down on their six, guns blazing, but my extensive bombing experience (at lower altitudes) shows that this almost always results in one of two outcomes: 1) the fighter is shot down 2) the fighter shoots down one bomber while being shot down itself. That's not much fun, nor very intelligent or imaginative.
If one wants to survive attacks on buff formations one must use slashing attacks (from the left & right), head-ons, or get way above the buffs (not easy) and then drop down on them almost vertically and make your killing shot (very hard), then pull out of your dive and climb all the way back up again. Slashing attacks, because they require the greater manuvering by the fighter, are unsuited to planes which do not handle well at extreme alts, which is most. Head-ons take a long time to set up even at lower alts and once you make your pass, it takes a long time to get around into position again.
In practice, most fighters perform so poorly at these alts that even an excellent pilot will have difficulty making an effective firing pass. And then will take forever to get into position again.
The idea that you can just hop in any old fighter with half a tank of fuel and in a few minutes be blasting away at the intruders is quite fancifal.
Also, anyone who climbs to 30K+ to bomb hangers is a moron. The buffs I'm dealing with are all flying to strategic targets, which stay down for hours.
MRPLUTO
-
The problem with your version of events is that the teleportation device is what causes the bombers to climb higher. Period. Bombers are vulnerable to fighters. If the fighter is higher, then they are super vulnerable. The teleporter and dot dar lets any interceptor pilot get to 25k befor a bomber can threaten if he is watching the dar. So the teleporter is the fundimental issue with game play here...your babling about how poorly fighters handle at 30k is just that. Bombers go that high(extrordinarily rarely, but I will justify your pathetic whine with discussion) only because they are safer there..they are safer there because in the land of 11k fields and 4000ft per minute interceptors they have to be that high to get by the bulk of interceptors.
So if you were really honestly looking at gameing the game.. you would ask for a change to the move command. But if your just going to whine to try to make the bombers more vulnerable..go at it.
Ps.
I have never bombed from above the wind layer since it was introduced.
-
I agree we need badly the F104 :rolleyes:
-
Though there are elements of this effect present in this thread, I believe is totally disregarding the "flatuarium effect".
This as some of you know is the inadvertant release of compressed gases in a pressurized and enclosed environment. This spontaneous occurance is extremely dangerous when it occurs near military high explosive ordinance and an open flame, such as a bombay and a lit cigarrette.
Please if you are flyinging in a high altituded bomber don't light up, and don't let your buddies light up. And stay away from the cucumbers, cabbage, and refried beans.
Many of the bombers that were lost during WWII were lost due to this phenomenon. No one survived. It's a horrible way to die, especially if your buddies cigarrette didn't fully light the methane.
Oh gawd the smell!! The smell!
Open a window!!!...
NO WAIT... WE'LL DECOMPRES...BOOM!
So many lives lost....
Please model this realistically...
-
I think the bigger problem is these low alt bombers making suicide runs at the field hangers,but not griping about it just that it is unrelistic but hey the whole MA is unrealistic.
The Ki 67 is a very good bomber I fly it all the time usually at about 25k and very rearly see any enemy planes,probally because I only hit strat targets that are never defended.
-
Originally posted by Shiva
Actually, when I'm setting up a high-alt buff run on a field, I look at the field layout and see what targets I can take out with various ingress lines; with a B-17, I generally look for a route that will let me hit four targets, whether they're hangars, ammo, fuel, radar, or barracks -- at least one hangar, because that makes it easier to get the proper line set up, but because you don't get any real effect from blowing one or two hangars at a field, getting the support targets like ammo, fuel, and barracks get a higher priority for me. And it's more satisfying to see the columns of black smoke rising behind me, anyway. :D
I can take out an entire small base with a B26
I can decimate a medium base with a B17
I can obliterate a large base with a Lanc....with MAYBE 1 fh left...depending on my accuracy.
Thats me...alone......a well flown bomber can kill all the FH at small and med bases with ease...and large bases you can wither totally destroy or at least make the Jabo job very small.
With 2 bomber flights comming from crossing directions, you can do it all in 1 pass.
-
Pongo,
Will you please stop using insults?
When I respond with ideas and well-reasoned arguments, your response is to accuse me of "whining" and "babling". Can you not say why my arguments are wrong?
You keep saying that the "teleportation" is what causes the buffs to fly so high. Pongo: I will point out once again that the "move" command does not create an unreal situation...In WW2 the Luftwaffe could see the buffs further out than we can with our ultra-short radar and knew the altitude as well. As a result, the fighters were usually waiting for the buffs at a higher altitude. (This is why the buff formations often made sudden turns to a target the Luftwaffe might not have been covering.) If flying at well over 30K would have worked in WW2 our bombers could have been ordered to do so. They weren't for the reasons I've stated serveral times now: terrible bombing accuracy and cold.
There has to be a cost to the bomber for flying so high, doesn't there? If not, please explain why.
Pongo, if you can respond without using insulting language and instead actually critique the arguments I've put forth in my posts here, then please do so. But if you can't, then please don't bother to respond.
MRPLUTO
-
One of the big drawbacks of alt buffing is the time. Your flight takes 90 mins and nets you perhaps 10 perks at best and activity is extremely limited. Flying a fighter, you can rack up many more in a shorter time and have much more to do. If you do supply runs to a field under attack in a M3, you can rack up huge numbers of perks.
-
qts,
Everything you say is quite correct, although an underlying assumption maybe not always be: that people are playing just to get perks. [ I have over 3,000 buff perks, with nothing to use them on to speak of. Perhaps someday a B-29.]
So I look at the strategic situation and hit several strategic targets in one run. By using good planing and tactics along with good gunning I often make it back with all 3 planes and get a kill or two. For the record, I get between 14 and 18 perks for such missions, usually flying B-17s or Ki-67s. I fly the 17s at 22-25K and the 67s at 20K.
MRPLUTO
-
Hmmm... I could have put it better. Perks lead to rank, and rank is what matters in the AH competitions and for other things e.g. controlling carriers. Also, not all of us are as skilled as you (look at my stats, for one) and earning perks to fly - and likely lose - the occasional special plane is important.
-
qts,
"I feel your pain", is what I should say to be polite. But in fact, I don't. :D Seriously, this is one of those rare situations where we can actually say, "Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree." [ I hate that; it's such a cop out.] But in this case our goals/interests seem to be very different. There's no accouting for taste; it's subjective. I fly in events & scenarios, but not in competitions. I took over an "unmanned" CV one time, turning it seconds before a string of bombs dropped astern.
I guess because I can fly or drive a perk vehicle anytime I want to, I guess it doesn't mean much to me. It's no longer a special treat.
Your points are well made.
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Since bombers in real life couldn't hit much of anything from above 30k, why not have a second wind layer at 30K moving in a direction different from the lower layer. Anyone bombing from above 30K would be adjusting only for the wind layer they are flying in. When the bombs hit the lower wind layer they would begin to be blown off course.
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
How many bombers have you seen fly over 30000ft lately. I havnt seen any. I rarely see any above 20k. I fly buffs 90% of
the time and I grab alt after my drop only to have a better chance against the mass of late war fighters that I am going to have to
battle. I dont see the 'alt monky buff ' thing as a problem.
-
As a bomber pilot and CO of a squad that does not fly it's bombers over historical operating altitudes it used to bother me to see players exploiting this ability and flying 35k+ but with all the whining that's gone on about bombers and strat ruining people's fun I don't really care anymore, infact WTG! the whiners have their Me163's which are far too lowly perked and on top of that you have the 262's and La7's to contend with. Those players that did complain about the above points are now reaping what they sowed.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
It does take a long time to climb to 30K+, but I assume these people do what I do when I climb to 25K; we eat a snack, take a quick shower; make phone calls. Don't laugh...I've heard other buff pilots do this, too!
MRPLUTO
Ironic how you are using a realism arguement for a preceived problem then you state this is how you fly. I am sure that is how buff pilots flew in wwii. Auto-climb, dinner, movie, shower, make a few phone calls. :rolleyes:
Seems you only want "realism" when it fits your needs or "your" preceived problems. I don't see many buffs at 30+k, but then again I can't say I fly that high. No problem in my perception. Now ssssshhhhh...i gotta run answer that phone in the shower.:)
-
It's so fediddlein hard to hit Fh's just UNDER the wind layer...I would never piss away the time again to grab that extra 10k...likely make it to target and back, but hittin things such as FH.s..(and not girly targets like cities and depots)...if it can consistently be done above wind layer..more power to ya
(Mrpluto..looked at your buff score..DAMNED impressive..WHAT exactly do you bomb...are ya sayin ya are hittin HANGARS at 25k..and landing ALL your missions? I must not be playin this game right..I go over a hot field...15..20..20..30k...the re are HOARDS after me...and the obligatory 30k+ spit after them)
-
Hi bj229r,
Thanks for the complement. Actually, I don't hit hangers...I almost always hit strategic targets: fuel refineries, cities, and flak factories are my favorites.
I don't do milk runs. Many of my missions are attacks deep into enemy territory. The enemy is slower to react to strategic bombers, so if you go in fast at a decent altitude (20k - 25k) most pilots will only be capable or patient enough to make suicidal dead six attacks. Well, I'm a really good shot, so they die with surprising rapidity. If one attacks fields there will be high fighters waiting to jump on any lower enemy, so I avoid fields.
My favorite bomber is the Ki-67 because it's so fast, but like I said above, you have to be an accurate bombardier because of its small bomb load. Eight 100 kg (220 lb.) bombs are the best loadout.
I don't think hitting hangers is a good strategy or tactic. But that's another post. :D
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
Pluto.
if you dont want people to insult you maybe keep insults out of the titles of your threads. But asside from that. THis is a stupid thread. Your a whiner. Seems to be the majority opinion.
Thread answered.
-
Accuracy--I never saw anyone try to define what bombing 'accuracy' is---is 'accuracy', being able to hit a city or dar factory at 25-30k?...that IS easy...even at 30k..provided ya spend lots time lining up, etc. (B17's best cruise alt WAS 30k...typically bombed from 25k, according to most the stuff I ever read--B24 couldnt hit 30k)..or is 'accuracy' bein able to hit hangars, etc? Dont care what anyone says...bomber group rackin up mucho points hittin factories, cities, etc is nice...but has negligable effect on war effort..which is taking bases. (mebbe SEVERAL buff groups hittin ..say... ALL the ammo bases at same time..THAT would do somethin) Accuracy has to be defined as being able to kill hangars...rare that base capture happens before ALL the fh's are plastered..best I can do is kill every other FH I aim at (from 15.5k, UNDER the wind layer...and I been at this from the start....if the buff is at 25k+...ya neednt worry about any kind of pin-salamander bombing at the base ya are defending...mebbe lose a few strats...which means the guy at 25k spent an hour to kill an few acks and a couple gas barrels
-
Originally posted by BigGun
Ironic how you are using a realism arguement for a preceived problem then you state this is how you fly. I am sure that is how buff pilots flew in wwii. Auto-climb, dinner, movie, shower, make a few phone calls. :rolleyes:
And all buff pilots were alone in their planes, without a copilot to trade off flying duties with, too, and had to wriggle out of their seat and down to the empty bombardier position when it came time to make their bombing run -- and if they hadn't had the foresight to get another person to ride with them to man all the gun positions, would have to dash from gun position to gun position to shoot at attacking fighters.
If you're going to squeak about the ways that flying a buff is 'gamey', BigGuns, squeak about all of them, not just the one that you're bent out of shape about. But while we're on the subject of whining about how a buff driver can put his plane on autopilot and go off and do something else while he climbs, is there anything actually preventing a fighter puke from taking off from a rear field, setting his autopilot on climb, and going off to take a dump, coming back five or ten or fifteen minutes later when his plane's at 30k?
-
You mean it's not historically correct that a bomber is defenseless while he's in the bombardier position? Another one of the problems with all the moaning about closer fields is that the same player can make suicidal attacks on bombers knowing he can just keep leap frogging all the way along the buffs course picking fields just ahead and climbing for another suicidal attack until eventually the bombers are dead.
-
Amen to that revvin. I just recenlty killed a guy 4 times in the same b17 hop. Total of 7 kills, but the guy got #3 and#4 engine and i couldnt clime over the fricken hill to get home. It was still a blast tho.:D
-
I dont suffer fools gladly, so I'm getting pretty tired of the responses I read.
*******
Your arguments are just rude insults, and/or illogical:
Example: "Because there are other unrealistic aspects of the game, why should we listen to your selfish whine?")
*******
Or they are just plain wrong:
"Seems you only want realism when it fits your needs..." (BigGun)
BigGun, tell me: Are you familiar with my other posts? Do you know that I often speak out in favor of greater realism, regardless of how it effects me? Or did you just say that because it sounded good, even though it is a complete mischaracterization of my opinions? I resent your charge, so either prove it with quotes from my other posts or retract it.
Also, BigGun: Although it is unrealistic to take a shower while on auto-pilot, such behavior doesn't effect game play. The buff can climb just as high whether the pilot sits in front of his computer during climbout watching TV & drinking a beer. In fact, there is a risk of an afk kill. If I climb to 20-25K while afk and then head for enemy airspace, how has my being afk affected the coming engagement? I'd be at the same alt whether I've showered or not.
*******
Shiva: You're right it's not realistic to have only one person in a plane. That's why he can instantly jump from position to position (not "wriggle out of their seat"). That's also why buffs have external views: to simulate the effect of having many sets of eyes watching the sky.
The purpose of these unrealistic abilities is too make the game more realistic. How ironic, but it works. In my argument I don't argue for unrealistic abilities, just realistic limitations to go along with the realistic advantages of flying buffs higher.
Also, for the record: I have posted about taking away the external view from aircraft like the TBM, A-20 and some others, since they don't have the multiple gun positions and formations like the B-17, Ki-67, and B-26. Since I like to fly buffs, this suggestion would actually be against my interests. But I thought I was just a selfish whiner? BigGun, are you reading this?
*******
Pongo:
Yes, I used a mild insult in the title of my post to get attention. You use insults as the meat of your argument. There's a tremendous difference.
At this point you've been reduced to arguing that most of the replies to this post don't support me. I don't know; I haven't counted them up. But since people who disagree are more likely to respond than those who agree, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. But what counts is not your survey based on a handful of responses, but the quality of the arguments presented, wouldn't you agree?
Also, your tactic of declaring, "Thread answered".....well no.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has answered my central argument:
Why should buff pilots get the advantages of flying at extremely high altitudes without suffering the consequences too?
Can you do it? Your responses take very little time thought; you can keep throwing them like dirt bombs. Try writing several well thought-out paragraphs that don't make use of insults. Again, I ask, "Can you do it?"
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Shiva: You're right it's not realistic to have only one person in a plane. That's why he can instantly jump from position to position (not "wriggle out of their seat"). That's also why buffs have external views: to simulate the effect of having many sets of eyes watching the sky.
MRPLUTO
How many times have you set up the bombsight in the external view? by the time one of the late war monsters is within shooting range you can lose the whole tail section of a bomber by the time you jump to the gunner position..and which one do you go to in a B17 for instance? top? belly? tail? nose? by the time you've done that you're already going down.
-
Actually Revin, I don't have any problem keeping an eye on enemy fighters and calibrating the bombsight.
I'll explain:
First, I climb to my cruising altitude and turn towards enemy territory far enough away to have time to accelerate. In Ki-67s this means 330 TAS [true airspeed].
My IP [initial point; the last turn towards the target] is at least 20-25 miles from the target. This is historically accurate.
I go to the bombardier position and set the target alt and get an early setting for the drop. Then back to external view.
As I get closer to the target and I'm sure my speed has stabilized I set the bombsight again (only for speed now), then go back to external view.
Any enemy trying to intercept me will be visible a long way off, well before they are a threat.
As I approach the target I make the last course corrections. Back to external, while I let the speed get constant after the course correction.
If there are any enemy fighters nearby, this is the only time they are a problem, but then only if they are in position to attack. I've had many missions in which I've watched an enemy stalk me as I go on my bomb run. But at d2.0 at my high 7 I'll have time to man the guns, because....
....I can calibrate the bombsight quite accurately in less than 10 seconds, jump to the appropriate gun position to check on the interceptor and go to the bombsight for the few seconds required to make the drop.
The most dangerous pilots will wait at your high 10 or 2 and try to time their attack when you have to drop, but that's hard to judge, and very few pilots are capable of making such a professional intercept.
And remember, I don't have to make the last calibration. It just helps if I've had to make last minute course corrections, beyond just very slight, gentle ones.
Bombs away and it's safe to man the guns.
*******
If you don't believe this works, just check out my buff score and stats on the HTC website.
MRPLUTO
-
Thanks for the advice but know how to bomb. It's still hardly fair or historical to have a player jump to bombardier, then jump to gun, external view and back again and that 10 seconds (takes a little longer to go from cockpit, bombardier, select target and settle mind you) is all that's needed for one of those jet monsters to zoom in and blow you apart. I prefer to spend a little more time in the norden and don't see why I should be defenseless while I set up my norden as the next jet monster ups and re-ups depending on how many times he makes a suicidal dead 6 attack. I'd like an automated gunner like the 'other' sim, it should'nt be a feared feature as some seem to if it was done right and had settings the host could tweak to fine tune it but we don't even have the luxury of getting a text warning like that other sim as the auto gunner spots cons so you could abort your calibration and jump to the guns.
Human gunners and escort are pretty much non existant in the MA despite requests, most squads talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it actually comes to providing escort.
-
Hopefully bombers will get a good tune up with ah2 coming.
Folks may remember my hatred of bombers dweebs and the calls I have made to just get rid of bombers all together. I have called them fluffers and other names.
I was glad when the new bombsite was introduced and expected a new type of skilled bomber pilot. That didnt happen.
Despite a few dweed suicide raids you hardly see bombers.
I think from my time as co and xo in the past few events that the workload on the bomber pilot is greater then it should be. We want a reasonable "simulation" of bombing for the AH2:ToD arena.
The bombsite calibration while simple on paper for the average bomb pilot its to difficult. This is especially apparent in events.
What I think needs to be done is the bombsite calibration should be more in line with IL2 FB and wwporkonline.
From the bombardier position you set TAS speed and alt AGL. For bombers that had an auto bomb release this should be modelled as well.
The 234 for instance the pilot moved the control colomn out of the way set alt and speed then marked the target then the plane automatically flew to that point and dropped.
In the ju88 and he 111 once alt and speed are set the target is marked and when the cross hairs hit that mark the bombs auto release. If you make slight course correction with less the 4 degree bank the site wont need to be recalibrated.
This would allow the pilot to jump around to different positions instead of remaining in the site.
Also the jumping around to different gun positions is to clumsy. There should be enemy aircraft reports from the gunners.
"tailgunner 3 enemy aircraft d6k" etc. This would give you the chance to jump to the gun position that gives you the best line on the attacking aircraft.
Also, I know this is taboo but I dont see anyway around it. AH needs otto. Auto gunners for the most part are the only defense bombers will have while in the bombsite. These could only be enabled only when in the bombadier position. Accurracy should be more realistic then in most other games. AI gunners should not be picking off planes from d1.5k. This will stop the dweeb who will jump to the bombadier position, then go to external view and fly the plane with his rudder. AI gunners will already be in use in AH2:ToD because HT has said that bomber formations will include ai bombers.
Along with this bombers are very easy to kill. I dont mean that they need more rounds to kill but its so easy to hit them from d800 that I usually can fly up there 6 and kill all 3 from range just by kicking my rudder. Some folks complain about 3 hits killing all 3 bombers but my experience has been 3 to 4 3cm to kill 1 bomber. Also the bombers dm should be tweaked (not buff toughness). There should be more things to shoot off.
Lastly bombers need realistic targets. Saying that bombers should fly around sniping individaul targets is just not how most bomber sorties were flown.
Anything that reduces the workload of the bomber pilot would be a good thing. They face long climbouts and time to target, a frustration calibration process and an airframe that is easily killed.
With all this in mind the average bomber pilot may think the only way he can live is going to 35k (I havent seen umm that high since bombers had no guns) or they may say f'it and figure they are dead anyway and just suicide in.
The lack of bomber pilots have had a real impact on the last few scenarios. Bombers need to be fun or no one will fly them.
Anyway way if you want bombers to be more realistic then there are alot of things that need to be fixed.
-
One other thin noone mentioned--the biggest reason buffs were mucho vulnerable on final to target was that they had to go in straight line..steady speed..which made it easy for ack gunners to set up shells to detonate at proper place and time--THEN..after the ack quit..the fighters came back..but it's all much ado about nothing..damn near noone flies buffs anymore---to much effort for too little gain
-
Good point, bj229r. I wish the AI 88mm flak didn't follow buffs, but instead was just fired into a "box" ahead of the bombers.
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
(Think of Curtis LeMay ordering the B-29s down to 9K over Tokyo so they could hit the target, for a change.)
MRPLUTO
LeMay was basically copying the British method of night time area bombing over Japan, which was very different than day light precision bombing as practiced by the US over europe. The objective was getting enough bombs close together to start a firestorm, not hitting individual buildings.