Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Weavling on July 26, 2003, 06:14:05 PM
-
It seem that the bombers are way too armored, and takes too many bullets to bring them down. In actual WWII, I don't think many bombers went down missing a wing, however that seems to be the case in Aces High. If bombers were this tough to take out, it would have been impossible for the British in the Battle of Britain to take out any of the bombers with those .303's. Instead, it's almost a requirement to have a 30mm to take out Bombers. Bombers are usually thought as reletivly easy targets, and only lethal in large groups. If a trio of B-17's spotted a 109 comming in, they'd probably be pretty worried. In AH, the 109 could be pasted well before any damage was delt.
I haven't really done research on it, but it seems like bombers would be more likely to go down for these reasons in no particular order:
1) Crew was too injured or killed. Structurally, the bombers were very tough, but they had little or no protection for the crew itself, thus they died quite easily. In AH, unless you get a dead on shot, you don't do much damage to the crew, especially the pilots.
2) Fires are a big hazard. Especially if the bombs are still in the bomb bay. ;) Of course if the fire is on the player bomber, you got a problem. With the drones though, they could burn all day. That could stand to be changed.
3) Control cables and junk inside the bomber could be damaged fairly easily. However, in AH, the only thing you can do to simulate this is to actually knock the control surface off. I'd think if you took a hit, there should be a fair chance that your control cables could be damaged, resulting in A. Mushy control, B. Limited control, or C. Loss of control to the respecive control surfaces the cables were connected to. This could also stand to be implemented on fighters as well. That way, you also don't have to blow off a guys wing or pop off his tail to bring him down. Even in WWII footage, blowing off wings wasn't that common.
Like I said, I didn't do any research on this, so correct me if I'm wrong, or if you can add in anything else.
-
IRL the gunners on the bomber didn't see hit sprites as big as the attacking plane when hitting from 1500 yards...
-
Lol, in RL, I dont think the gunners even hit their targets from 1500 yards.
Something to add...
Perhaps the engines could be a little more prone to damage. Instead of always having a oil leak, radiator hit, or fuel leak, it should be possible to have them shot out completly, or catch on fire more easily.
-
3 b17's would be pretty safe against a single 109...
The 109 was a poor bomber interceptor... lacking firepower.
I actually think the B17 for example is too weak in AH.. Though the lanc maybe abit too tough...
Chances of hitting a control cable would be likely greater when hitting a fighter than hitting a bomber... bigger target.. same size cables... many bombers could take a hell of a shredding and still rtb, as evidenced by the many photos available. A dead crew ... well in AH wound ONE crew member and the whole crew starts losing conciousness. CRAP! kill the tail gunner and the plane should not go down as it does currently.
Hit any bomber.. start a fire and it is guaranteed to blow up... no chance to put the fire out. It just might take 2-3 mins.
A single 17 vs multiple fighters is in trouble.. gee just like RL
SKurj
-
Originally posted by ccvi
IRL the gunners on the bomber didn't see hit sprites as big as the attacking plane when hitting from 1500 yards...
HT has stated (and I agree):
Hits in real WWII combat were very evident from very very long distances. The reason hit sprites are big is to make them visable given the limits on resolution.
-
Ok, so maybe a 109 is a bad example. And actually, I was in a B-17 box, against about 5 or 6 fighters. I downed 4 of them with reletive ease, before reinforcements came, and it took many shots for them to down me. Bombers almost seem to be a better antifighter weapon per person than fighters them selves, that is if the enemy is willing to engage. A 4 kill sortie isn't usually the easist to come by in a fighter, unless you against newbs. It's almost regular in a box of B-17s.
Also, about the crew situation. If you're in the tail gunner spot, and the tail gunner is hit, the tail gun simply does not work anymore, you don't blow up. 2nd, in RL, you could be shooting the bomber from behind and still wreak havoc to those in front. The bombers had no outer armor, thus bullets go right in, and can strike those in front. So far I've only been able to get a pilot kill on a buff if I go head on with'em.
I don't want to nerf the Buffs completely, I think it's just lame how you can totally spray a B-17, and it will fly on with no damage at all. I nailed a B-17 with my Hispanos in my Hurc IIC. I must have got 8 hits on his left wing, 4 hits on the underbelly(which is where the bombs should be, and he was on his way to the target), and 5 hits on the right wing. Nothing at all was wrong with that B-17, and he continued to fly along. I didn't persue since my Hurc wouldn't keep up. LOL.
-
Originally posted by SKurj
A dead crew ... well in AH wound ONE crew member and the whole crew starts losing conciousness. CRAP! kill the tail gunner and the plane should not go down as it does currently.
A little know fact is that gunner positions on bombers can be killed individually in AH. The problem is that they're so tough that a few hits more blows the whole bomber up. I think it's possible to kill 2 of them at maximum before the buff goes boom.
-
Originally posted by Weavling
I don't want to nerf the Buffs completely, I think it's just lame how you can totally spray a B-17, and it will fly on with no damage at all. I nailed a B-17 with my Hispanos in my Hurc IIC. I must have got 8 hits on his left wing, 4 hits on the underbelly(which is where the bombs should be, and he was on his way to the target), and 5 hits on the right wing. Nothing at all was wrong with that B-17, and he continued to fly along. I didn't persue since my Hurc wouldn't keep up. LOL.
I don't see anything wrong with the above.... as per the current damage model, (not able to add holes/drag per hit).
Now if you had hit one wing with all those shots.... it likely would have gone down.
In a Typhoon, probably 1 out of every 3 attempts I can take down all 3 17's and rtb.. (with damage)
SKurj
-
IRL it averaged at around 20 20mm hits around the SAME spot with the german 20mm, it would proburly take around 15 haspano hits on a b17.
-
A single 7.9mm through the head of a gunner pretty much disables that gunner position irl...
-
i think icons for all gunner positions in AH should have reduced range. Some guys out there can kill you from 1.4k in a b17. Its like they have perfect aim or something.
-
its not how hard the bombers are that p!sses me off when attacking them, its the non-dispersing lazer cannon that really annoy me.
Some time back i think someone posted results of gunner tests here, where it was found the dispersion on buff guns was so great that if you aimed directly at a target at 1k or so the chances of hitting it were virtually nil. Im probably wrong tho!
-
All in all, actually, bombers have sufficient amount of survivability in AH. At least that's my opinion. People talk about bringing down three buff formations single-handedly all the time, but frankly, in my experience in interception and observation, it's a matter of circumstances - either its always a exceptionally skilled pilot in planes with superb firepower, with superb alt advantage doing that, or someone who has the same kamikaze mindset of field porking approaching a buff from their 6, and taking it down with them.
If an average skilled average pilot sees a buff, gains altitude and tries to catch up with it, then tries engages it single handedly.. it's a very difficult task. The risks are high, and its more than probable he won't bring down any of the buffs.
..
I think the real problem is how the interception should be changed in details, rather than overall difficulty. Making the bombers tougher against structural fatality, but more prone to various situations of damages, from higher probability of death to bomber gunners, more fires, damage in internal systems.. maybe death of co-pilots.. and etc etc. With such changes, should come additional features such as engine extinguishers, dumping fuel, etc..
Currently, it is possible to bring down bombers in prolonged 'realistic' attacks... go for the drones with less protective fire arc, shoot its engines.. and afetr a while, the drones part from the lead buff, lagging behind. Picking them off one by one.. However, this is so inefficient compared to picking off wings or elevators and bringing it instantly down.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I think the real problem is how the interception should be changed in details, rather than overall difficulty. Making the bombers tougher against structural fatality, but more prone to various situations of damages, from higher probability of death to bomber gunners, more fires, damage in internal systems.. maybe death of co-pilots.. and etc etc. With such changes, should come additional features such as engine extinguishers, dumping fuel, etc..
That's exactly what I'm aiming for! I think the structual integerty of the bombers is just fine! Due to the size of the planes, they were very struturally stong, and hard to knock pieces of it off. however, the way the damage model is in AH, causeing some massive structual failure is currently the only viable way of downing a bomber. Nearly every bomber shot down in AH is because of a missing wing or part of. IRL, I don't think that was the majority case. AH currently has very little internal damage modeled.
I remember flying on Microsoft CFS 1. Desite the easy flight model, and that damn roll bug on the hard setting, there were aspects of the damage model that i really liked! On the medium difficulty settings, after taking slight damage, usually your overall performance was reduced. Get hit in the wing, you can't roll as well, or you'll have a tendancy to roll to one side, or you'll tend to roll when you start turning, or nothing at all. Get hit in the tail area, you're ablilty to use your elevators would be hampered by decreased rate of pitch control, or nothing at all. In some way, your ability to control the plane would be affected, or perhaps not, it depened. So even if you are hit with only a few shots, your ability to fight may be reduced. As you sutained more damage, the effects became worse, and eventually to the point where you cannot effectivly control the plane, thus you may go down, or will not be able to continue the fight. Contrary to AH, a plane going down was not always to a catostrophic structural failure. These aspects would be great in fighters, as well as bombers.
Also about the "lasers" of the buff. I just flew off line, and there is dispersion on the guns, but not much at all. I think the dispersion could stand to be increased to prevent the "sniping" of planes 1000 yards or more away. Rifles in WWII were accurate to about 1000 yards or a little more. Seems a little wierd that the gunners in AH can hit something up to nearly 2000 yards away with a Machine Gun, especially when the bomber they're in is moving, and their target is moving as well. But I don't think the gunner gunnery is as big as a factor as the whole damage aspect, but I think this could be tweaked.
BTW, thx for the replies all! :cool:
-
Nooooooo! I double posted!!!! :o
-
i like the bomber's the way they are today i just riped a spit14 to peices in only a few second's it was funny. nadi have fun augering after being shot down by 1 and hint use the 110 to incept bomber's work's veryy well try escaping 2 30mm's and like 6 20mm's not easy.
skull12
-
Originally posted by ccvi
A little know fact is that gunner positions on bombers can be killed individually in AH. The problem is that they're so tough that a few hits more blows the whole bomber up. I think it's possible to kill 2 of them at maximum before the buff goes boom.
Neg. I've lost all five guns on my Ki-67s on more than one occasion, had all three guns on the Lanc taken out and lost more than three guns on the B-17 on several occasions. I remember killing a Bf109E with just the right waist gun on my Ki-67 because he'd killed all four of the other gunners.
My experience with the Lanc and Ki-67 is if the fighter fires and gets more than a light sprackle of hits the tail gun dies almost every time. B-17G's guns seem quite a bit tougher.
-
The 109 was a poor bomber interceptor... lacking firepower.
I actually think the B17 for example is too weak in AH.. Though the lanc maybe abit too tough...
when would you see lancs during the day?
-
I haven't really done research on it, but it seems like bombers would be more likely to go down for these reasons in no particular order:
lolo
i wish we had a gong in here..like the gong show...
GONGGGGGGGGGG
-
Originally posted by Weavling
Seems a little wierd that the gunners in AH can hit something up to nearly 2000 yards away with a Machine Gun
I can tell you that buff guns only reach 1.9k, with a big drop after 1.6k!
-
Originally posted by Weavling
Ok, so maybe a 109 is a bad example. And actually, I was in a B-17 box, against about 5 or 6 fighters. I downed 4 of them with reletive ease, before reinforcements came, and it took many shots for them to down me. Bombers almost seem to be a better antifighter weapon per person than fighters them selves, that is if the enemy is willing to engage. A 4 kill sortie isn't usually the easist to come by in a fighter, unless you against newbs. It's almost regular in a box of B-17s.
C'mon weavling. I've attacked b17 forms with 109f and come out w 2 kills. You cant saddle up on a buffw .50's in the back.
4 or 5 fighters hittng a b17 form should be able to kill them all without losing a single plane. You just have to be smart about when and where to attack. the bombers are fine how they are.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Neg. I've lost all five guns on my Ki-67s on more than one occasion, had all three guns on the Lanc taken out and lost more than three guns on the B-17 on several occasions. I remember killing a Bf109E with just the right waist gun on my Ki-67 because he'd killed all four of the other gunners.
My experience with the Lanc and Ki-67 is if the fighter fires and gets more than a light sprackle of hits the tail gun dies almost every time. B-17G's guns seem quite a bit tougher.
I can't remember the last time I attacked a Ki-67. Maybe it's settings are a bit more real than the b17's ones.
-
Oh, and while we're at losing parts...
Did anyone ever lose only a half horizontal stabilizer? I think there's an entry for each left and right in the list, but the always seem to die both at once.
-
I've lost one once, but about a second later the other fell off aswell...............most likely lag.
-
Originally posted by Weavling
Ok, so maybe a 109 is a bad example. And actually, I was in a B-17 box, against about 5 or 6 fighters. I downed 4 of them with reletive ease, before reinforcements came, and it took many shots for them to down me. Bombers almost seem to be a better antifighter weapon per person than fighters them selves, that is if the enemy is willing to engage. A 4 kill sortie isn't usually the easist to come by in a fighter, unless you against newbs. It's almost regular in a box of B-17s.
Also, about the crew situation. If you're in the tail gunner spot, and the tail gunner is hit, the tail gun simply does not work anymore, you don't blow up. 2nd, in RL, you could be shooting the bomber from behind and still wreak havoc to those in front. The bombers had no outer armor, thus bullets go right in, and can strike those in front. So far I've only been able to get a pilot kill on a buff if I go head on with'em.
I don't want to nerf the Buffs completely, I think it's just lame how you can totally spray a B-17, and it will fly on with no damage at all. I nailed a B-17 with my Hispanos in my Hurc IIC. I must have got 8 hits on his left wing, 4 hits on the underbelly(which is where the bombs should be, and he was on his way to the target), and 5 hits on the right wing. Nothing at all was wrong with that B-17, and he continued to fly along. I didn't persue since my Hurc wouldn't keep up. LOL.
If you are having a tough time in taking down bomber formations, it's possible that you have to rethink the tactics you're using to engage the bombers.
I fly the P-38 pretty much exclusively and not that I'm a great pilot or anything but I have absolutely no troubles in successfully engaging bomber formations solo. The key is how you engage them. Coming in at a dead six o'clock position is obviously not a very good idea, especially against bombers like the B-17 or Ki-67. Doing it this way is just asking for a quick trip back to the tower. At least for me, the best way to engage a bomber formation (or even a single bomber) is to come in from above and dive at a steep angle, aiming your plane between the top turret and the cockpit. This will make it harder for the bomber formation's guns to track you properly. This will also put you in a position that when you get within gun range and fire, you're rounds will usually land in the area between the wing root and the cockpit. If your fighter has big enough guns, this usually results in either blowing the bomber up outright or taking off one of its wings on your first pass. After you make your pass, dive through the formation and extend past gun range, pull up into a steep climb and then reverse and re-engage until all the bombers are gone. If done right, it will only take 2-3 passes to kill the formation and usually you'll only receive a ping or two for the trouble. It is also very important to keep your speed up and never let it get below 300mph when you are making your attack runs.
This tactic has worked great for me but as with most things in life, YMMV.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by BenDover
I can tell you that buff guns only reach 1.9k, with a big drop after 1.6k!
oh come on you dont believe that do you? :rolleyes:
i have been rippen in half @ D2.0k before by many a b26 / 17 gunner.
when you get those sputnik dweebs to HQ at 35k the guns go even farther. i lost a 163 @ 34k from 2.7k out. b17 took off both wings.
im suprised noone mentions that all the guns fire in non dispersing patterens together, like lasers. IIRC the books i read about in real life the gunners were almost never all shooting @ 1 enemy.
i never got to play AW but IMHO the idea of haveing 6 people join your bomber as gunners each firing independently is the way it should be.
another thing. so many of the buff pilots have learned that by using rudder to turn while fighting can bring more guns firing on the target. again IRL the pilot wasnt manuevering around to get a better shot on the bogies. he was trying to stay on course and level to give the gunners a stable shooting platform.
these are all considerations we make playing a game though i guess.
oh well my 2¢
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
At least for me, the best way to engage a bomber formation (or even a single bomber) is to come in from above and dive at a steep angle, aiming your plane between the top turret and the cockpit.
How do you do that with bombers at 30-35k?
-
Learn how to attack bombers properly and you'll survive with kills.
In the first 3 seconds I see a fighter approaching my group, I know if the pilot is any good. Most, and I mean 75-90% will appraoch me at slow closure from dead six.
Know why it's called "Dead six"?
I let these guys creep in, thinking I'm not watching, and get to right where all 6 50 cals are converging. If my aim is true, a 3 sec. blast will kill anything.
Now, what does a smart fighter jock do when attacking bombers? Well, I'm not telling you, but he does not approach from dead six.
Buffs are fine. Our gig is tough enough. Learn how to win and you won't need HT to program your problems away.
-
Originally posted by JB73
another thing. so many of the buff pilots have learned that by using rudder to turn while fighting can bring more guns firing on the target. again IRL the pilot wasnt manuevering around to get a better shot on the bogies. he was trying to stay on course and level to give the gunners a stable shooting platform.
Actually you are mistaken.
A good friend of mine was a B-17 pilot in the ETO during WWII.
They did the very thing you said they did not. Though they had to hold formation, and there was no maneuvering on the bomb run, they did minor corrections to give gunners a shot.
Tell you what. Set it up so that I'm flying a box with 159 other bombers, with full gunners on each, plus escort and we'll talk about nerfing the bombers. Until then, keep the "Selective Realism" in check.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
How do you do that with bombers at 30-35k?
P-38 flies and fights just fine at 40k :D
-
Wasnt shooting at the cockpit the easiest way to get rid of the big buffs in WW2?
Also, didnt the germans equip thier bomber interceptors with 20 and 30mms just so that thier planes could shoot at and damage bombers from a safe distance where the bomber's gunners did little or no damage to the planes?
-
I remember reading that that was a WWII tactic, used by German pilots...Shoot for the cockpit in a head on.
I think it was that compilation book, "War in the Air" or something.
If I recall there was an excerpt from "The Blonde Knight" where this was mentioned.
-
I agree with Muckmaw, bombers are fine the way they are now.
I think we're at a point where it's close enough whether you give it tiny tweaks one way or the other or not...
Bombers are survivable and can down 3-5 planes if the interceptors don't know what they're doing..
Bombers are also vunerable and can be blown away in a single pass by an interceptor who does.
Good gunners who know what THEY'RE doing also matter.
I still do high alt buff runs (18-25k) and also intercept high alt buff runs and my experiences say it's balanced from both sides.
Of course I consider myself a good gunner (someday I'll manage a 2:1 k/d in 17 formations) and my best flights are where an excellent FW interceptor will play tag with me above 18k, tension and immersion really come into play when I see him setting up a deadly pass and the outcome is never certain. Good interceptors vs good gunners make the buffing game excellent these days.
-
oops, double post