We're missing the point - bombers dont need to be perked

[Delirium]

Wrooooooong. I'll send you my film of me bombing from 17k in a B29 last night, my setup was perfect, my speeds were spot on, and I still ended up missing 50% of the time.

B-29 airspeed indicator in the bombadier's position was out of calibration.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/Flight-Simulator-Download/aces-high-version-223-patch-1-information-page.html

I've seen B17s, B24s and Lancs do it all the time. Now, let's get back to this argument.   

[waystin2]

I have always understood a perked ordnance system to be specialty loadout type items (Fritz X, dam busters, tallboy, etc.).  Which I wholeheartedly supported. Perking ordnance just to perk it, is a horrible idea.

[Vinkman]

I don't think it would be all rosey like you think with this. You'd also be forced to perk attack load outs.

I don't think you would have to. We only perk 3 bombers now. We're just saying the perks values for these bombers could be lowered if lower bomb loads were chosen. So while I applied it to a lot of bombers, the numbers could be adjusted to only affecting 'perk' worthy plane/load combinations. I doubt many of the Attack load/planes would qualify, if they don't now. They could if there was value in it, but they wouldn't have to.

Then we'd move onto the fact noobs couldn't fly the 'super bombers' because they don't have the perks.

Noobs can't fly them under the current system, and won't be able to for a very long time. In the new system they'd get to the minumum perk level much quicker than getting to the current non-varying number.

More over, if we're perking planes like such, why not add the same idea to Fighters?

Again that could be done but I'm not sure there's a case for making that change.

Why not perk the formations? As it works now... You'd pay about 100 for a B29, and 300 for 3. This means loosing a single drone is 100 perks, the guy flying his Lancs loses Nothing atm for his formation. The same works with the Mossie's. Pay per plane, the formation costs more. The code is already there in theory.

I think factoring in single vs formation would be a good idea too

[Vinkman]

I have always understood a perked ordnance system to be specialty loadout type items (Fritz X, dam busters, tallboy, etc.).  Which I wholeheartedly supported. Perking ordnance just to perk it, is a horrible idea.

we're not perking it just to perk it. I'd be against that too. This a way to get the required perk lower when not loaded up to the hilt. The idea being that a B-29 with 2000lbs of bombs probably isn't worthy because the lethality is so reduced. Just a way to more folks in them.

[waystin2]

we're not perking it just to perk it. I'd be against that too. This a way to get the required perk lower when not loaded up to the hilt. The idea being that a B-29 with 2000lbs of bombs probably isn't worthy because the lethality is so reduced. Just a way to more folks in them.

Excuse me for being slow on the uptake here... Just so I understand that this whole discussion is about trying to lower the Perk of a B-29 by using a lesser bombload?  So why are other bombers included in the discussion?   

[Vinkman]

Excuse me for being slow on the uptake here... Just so I understand that this whole discussion is about trying to lower the Perk of a B-29 by using a lesser bombload?  So why are other bombers included in the discussion?   

  Hey your not slow, I'm probably writing this up crappy. 

 To the point,  lancs are perked, and B-29, and Arados are Perked. I think B-24s are perked too. Wouldn't it be fun to fly and gun those at low to medium altitudes? If you took away the huge bomb loads, [Arado's speed would probably keep it perked] the threat to the enemy [lethality] would be so reduced, there would be no need to perk it. The game balance wouldn't change if folks were flying around in lancs, or B29s with a 1000lbs of bombs in them. With more access and lower risk of perk point loss, they would get more air time, which would be more fun for all.

...assuming you believe it would be more fun for all. I think it probably would.