Fixing bombers

[Wiley]

Most fights seem to be ended by a bomber crippling the hangars. Often before the "fight" has even begun. It's disappointing whether you're on the losing or the so-called "winning" side in such engagements. It also seems like 4 out 5 CV furballs get scuttled quickly, whether its your CV or theirs. The effort needed to kill the fight and the difficulty of preventing that same seems unbalanced. Certainly this is the case when one side is badly outnumbered anyway. Thus the ENY suggestion. Also, those who regularly hunt and kill the toughest buffs deserve more perks than they are getting atm IMO.

Honestly, I think you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses.  Any buff group I see that is in an attackable position by a fighter or two dies horribly.  Sometimes one gets in with nobody in position to stop it.  That's gameplay.

Any side using a CV that doesn't pork the bases around it should expect no other result than for it to sink.

Nearly all I do is oppose large red bardars.  In at least 2 years, I can remember one evening off the top of my head that made me think, 'Damn, the buffs just keep coming and it's impossible to defend this base.'  Once.  Far, far more often I've watched a swarm of fighters do the same thing a few buffs would do in less time.

Wiley.

[Karnak]

Far, far more often I've watched a swarm of fighters do the same thing a few buffs would do in less time.

Wiley.

I've tested and timed this.  Fighter-bombers are significantly more efficient than bombers right now.  With the changes BnZ proposes they would be staggeringly more efficient.

[guncrasher]

Most fights seem to be ended by a bomber crippling the hangars. Often before the "fight" has even begun. It's disappointing whether you're on the losing or the so-called "winning" side in such engagements. It also seems like 4 out 5 CV furballs get scuttled quickly, whether its your CV or theirs. The effort needed to kill the fight and the difficulty of preventing that same seems unbalanced. Certainly this is the case when one side is badly outnumbered anyway. Thus the ENY suggestion. Also, those who regularly hunt and kill the toughest buffs deserve more perks than they are getting atm IMO.

I played for several hours last night.  we took several bases but bombers never killed any fights.  there was even a cv battle where the damn cv was up to what it seemed like forever.  bombers did shut down bases a few times but there always seemed to be and endless supply of la7 flying around.  I guess the la7 hangar never got killed.

I say la7's hoing over the field kills more fights than bombers.



semp

[BnZs]

Any side using a CV that doesn't pork the bases around it should expect no other result than for it to sink.

But....I can't pork the bases for my own side to keep some green dolt from sinking the buffet table the enema so considerately parks offshore...

[Zoney]

As an unapologetic alt monkey, I love to hunt bombers.  I possess the one thing you must have to be successful, patience.  Everything else you need is a skill that you will develop, IF, you have patience.

I don't think anything needs tweaking or changing.  If buffs are below 20k, they are dead quick, if they are higher they are dead too, it just takes a bit longer.

Yes, the buffs have a very stable gun platform to shoot but so do the fighters, no turbulence, no jammed guns, no dud ammo.

If and when, you develop the skills and have the patience for a quality intercept I don't think anyone will want it easier either.  I want this game to be hard, but with balanced gameplay and I think we have that now.

This month I have killed:

26 B17's
19 B24's
5   B26's
1   B29
36 Lancs

That's 87 kills and ZERO deaths and I am at best a mediocre stick.

A successful base defense means that I am killing guys and having fun doing it, could really care less if the base is captured during the ensuing melee.  I know I can't kill them all so I never get frustrated or impatient.

 

[Delirium]

AH combat is much more bloody for any participant, fighters, bombers, vehicles.

Without a doubt because (on average) the AH stick is generally a better shot, has the benefit of range icons, and also has the benefit of a message telling them their prey were destroyed.

History versus AH is almost apples to oranges in terms of comparison.

[Karnak]

Without a doubt because (on average) the AH stick is generally a better shot, has the benefit of range icons, and also has the benefit of a message telling them their prey were destroyed.

History versus AH is almost apples to oranges in terms of comparison.

And, most significantly, has the benefit of not dying when they over commit or put themselves in a bad spot in order to get a kill.

[Zoney]

And, most significantly, has the benefit of not dying when they over commit or put themselves in a bad spot in order to get a kill.

"Most significantly", is absolutely the case here and I've thought that for a long long time.  In RL you tried something and if you were wrong you died.  Whatever information you may have gleaned from your mistake you really couldn't learn from because you were dead.  Your mates also learned nothing from your mistake because "dead men tell no tales".  The consequences here are a loss of time, a trip to the tower, and a shiny new plane for you to make your next mistake in.

[save]

Decreasing the ability to cripple a well armoured plane flying 1,5k beside a bomberset
would be both realistic and reducera time on target before a fighter get in range to be able to shoot back.
This happens VERY orten.
Decreasing this to 1k  is probably the best and easiest fix.

I would stay no fighter ever was shot down 1.5k from any angle than from straight approach ded 6.
IF i fly at 1.5k beside a bomber set overtaking them I normally have smoking engine and one gun ded, and if its a good gunner Im half-winged.
Im sure any descent  B17/B24 pilot can testify that.

Dont tell me Ishould fly 2k away just because of a total unrealistic ubergunnery noone in real life had,

In effect it gives gunners 700 yards of free shooting with no chance of shooting at them buffs.
Even from front they reach out to that distance and in best case only give  a crippled/ded buff for a totally molested fighter with enginge oiled and in US birds a pw on top of that.
I agree buffs should be able to shoot back även i gunsight though, because they are meat during that time period.

[BnZs]

I've tested and timed this.  Fighter-bombers are significantly more efficient than bombers right now.  With the changes BnZ proposes they would be staggeringly more efficient.

With all due respect, what did these tests consist of?

We will assume an fb-ac takes 5 minutes to climb to 10K. That time is probably generous for many fighters when hauling max ords. Then when figure in flying 25 miles to target at an average speed of 300mph. Again, that average speed is probably generous, but we'll roll with it. That gives us another 5 minutes enroute to target. Assuming no other time is spent doing anything other than dive bombing and auguring, that is 10 minutes. So far so good. But a single fighter bomber is good for one hangar in AHII. If this individual wants to get both fighter hangars, that is at least 20 minutes, and that time is probably an underestimation. Both fighter hangars and the VH, 30. This is probably more time than it takes to get a heavy bomber to target with more than enough bombs. So sorry, I find the idea that fighter-bombers are much better to be suspect. It just doesn't add up.

HOWEVER, I definitely *would* support a light perk price when taking 1000 pounders in f-b aircraft, which I think should work like the price on perk aircraft, that is you get to keep the price if your RTB successfully. This is to encourage trying to survive.