Author Topic: Triple Buffs Should GO  (Read 9508 times)

Offline 999000

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #165 on: March 20, 2007, 05:06:40 PM »
OK so if fighters go about twice as fast as Bombers whats the problem?

Thanks respected Husky!

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #166 on: March 20, 2007, 05:13:44 PM »
You're comparing IAS in bombers to TAS in fighters at alts over 15k....

Might want to rethink your strategy there.

Offline marcdsm

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #167 on: March 20, 2007, 05:24:00 PM »
I don't know what the problem is, those who fly bombers take off from bases generally a fair distance from where the action is, then they have to gain the Alt, decide what salvo to use, get in line for a productive run on target, control there speed to calibrate, if ground is uneven calibration can take several attemps,scan the air around them for enemy planes, which there generally are, defend the bombers, make there drops and then get back to base,  and with all of that going on you still don't like the bombers because there are those of us out there that can do all of that and still knock you out of the air!!!

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23872
      • Last.FM Profile
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #168 on: March 20, 2007, 05:29:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by marcdsm
control there speed to calibrate, if ground is uneven calibration can take several attemps


Topography has no influence on calibration.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #169 on: March 20, 2007, 06:15:19 PM »
Krusty, bombers aren't hard to kill.  You need to show some facts that they are.. prove it.  If you're so convinced they are, then you should have no difficulty at all in showing, with facts rather than just saying you're right, why that's true.

I could post a film of me killing off a formation without those 5+ minutes of repositioning between passes, as you say.
You can't bend the reality of a design made for a specific purpose (the design of planes in this planeset) just to suit the game.  If bombers are going to be restricted in their engine use, then it would only be fair if fighters stopped having magicaly renewing WEP coolants.  
Bombers are such that you need to set up your interception of them correctly, not just see their dot come into dar range, up a fighter - any fighter, climb up and past them, and just shoot em up like sitting ducks.

CT is where the full realism arena setup will be interesting, not in the present MA.


Tilt, and Simaril,
The bombing calibration we have is not difficult at all.  I did a perfect drop from ~18kft on my second try ever.
As Tilt said, you need only set your throttle right with the E6B readings.. It's less difficult than landing on a CV. Newbies can do that.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 06:21:59 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #170 on: March 20, 2007, 06:32:26 PM »
Quote
I submit that we ought to think of the bombing model more in terms of player retention. Looking only at their simulation accuracy is shortsighted, because the buff pilot of today may become the combat opponent of tomorrow...if we can keep him hooked long enough to get there.


 And why should of all things, only the bombers be subjected to these terms? What's to stop some other person from trying to apply the same terms to a variety of things including flight characteristics, damage modelling, gunnery, and what not?

 Your category of thought takes for granted that bombers are n00b material, which it is not.

Offline Simaril

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #171 on: March 20, 2007, 07:01:18 PM »
Kweassa, that's a fallacious argument. My whole POINT is that bombers' easier mode settings keep people having fun so they CAN hang around to learn the very challenging fighter model. Applying that logic to the fighter model itself is silly.

If you watch what new players actually DO it;s obvious. They try fighters. and when they get frustrated they up buffs so they can feel like SOMETHING they did went right.  Do an informal observational study next time you fly -- watch the proportion of vets:newbs in the fighters around you, and see how different it is from vets:newbs in bombers!!

I still remember a time when a gang of us just happened to start furballing from a carrier and nearby base, in an otherwise empty arena. We fought for a good while, and nobody cared about points. Both countries had an unofficial truce for the sake of the fun --- the carrier side called off their capture people, and the base side called off their ord mongers. But after a while, a guy who wasnt as experienced, and who got tired of repeatedly dying, upped buffs in spite of us an sank the carrier. He said he did it because "You guys do fighters, and I do bombers, and that's that."


You old time vets have completely forgotten how hard it is to learn fighters, and some of you don't seem to care about how the game flows for new guys. It's not been long since I was in those shoes, and bombers kept me from giving up...since I COULD find something to do when all else failed. How many vets reading this can say that they spend as much time in bombers as they used to?
Maturity is knowing that I've been an idiot in the past.
Wisdom is realizing I will be an idiot in the future.
Common sense is trying to not be an idiot right now

"Social Fads are for sheeple." - Meatwad

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #172 on: March 20, 2007, 07:16:34 PM »
Actually Simaril, I'd say bombers are more difficult to stay alive in than fighters.
I can say I spend more time in bombers now than before.

The calibration as it is is a piece of cake, anyone can do it.  Gunning is difficult to master, but no more difficult than lead shooting fixed forward guns.
Everyone plays by the same rules, and you don't need to be Einstein or have professional Counter-Strike like hand-eye coordination to succeed in fighters.. you just need to understand where and when you need to be.
How to get there is simple enough in theory for anyone to understand, and in practice it just takes practice.

When I first started, I watched Fester in his 38 over the beta map, clean up entire furballs, and I realized that no matter how extraordinary it might seem, the "solution" to doing what he did had to be constrained to Brain+Joystick.  Noobs have that.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 07:20:04 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9368
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #173 on: March 20, 2007, 07:50:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Simaril
You old time vets have completely forgotten how hard it is to learn fighters, and some of you don't seem to care about how the game flows for new guys. It's not been long since I was in those shoes, and bombers kept me from giving up...since I COULD find something to do when all else failed. How many vets reading this can say that they spend as much time in bombers as they used to?

Heh.  I CAN!

Simaril, you raise a good point, which is, how do you keep people from getting frustrated by the steep learning curve?  There are probably a lot of different answers to this.  Back in AW we had a new pilots arena, and there were relaxed realism arenas as well.  Here in AH you have stall limiter, and you can fly with squad mates on missions where you've got someone more experienced to fly cover for you while you learn.  So far as it goes, I'm with you on bomber formations, because they offer the opposing fighter an exciting challenge while they give the frustrated tenderfoot a rest from fighter operations.  

I agree with Krusty that bombers with ordnance should be limited to cruise speed - heck, if they can come up with a stall limiter, they should be able to come up with some sort of speed limiter.  But this is an historical limitation, not a balance limitation.  Those who have said that it takes patience to attack bombers formations successfully are absolutely right.  And it should, because it did.

- oldman (and stop pretending that you're some sort of mediocre pilot.  We know better.)

Offline Atoon

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #174 on: March 20, 2007, 08:04:12 PM »
How do you keep people from getting frustrated by the learning curve?

You give them planes that are uber easy to fly, & have tons of ammo. Unfortunately we have many skilled players who choose to slum in these planes primarily designed for newbies. Just figure out a way to keep skilled sticks out of the trainer rides & gamepley will imrove alot
Thanx for addressing the signature issue FAIRLY, I am morally aloud to patronize your business again. I am Anton & Uknome, Current game-ID Anton1.   *-Brown Nosers STINK!-*

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #175 on: March 20, 2007, 08:11:06 PM »
Aces High has thrived, at least from a business standpoint, for what, just over 7 years now? It has not done so simply because of formations, or no one would have played the first 2+ years.

999000, I have not slandered you, I have simply described the only thing I ever see you doing, and that's trying to play Deathstar in a formation at treetop level. If you wish to deny do this, that is fine. In fact, you can continue to do it, and simultaneously deny it- I really don't care. It is not my opinion that most bomber pilots fight like hell. It is my observation that they act like cruisemissles. Go in, hit target, die.

Now, if HT wanted to come in and say, "yes, we originally wanted carpet bombing, but most of our customers can't manage to read 3 simple instructions and follow them, but we've kept these bombers that disobey the laws of time and space (the awful drone behavior and warping, not speed or payload) because the noobs we've got now are even dumber than the first group", I'd probably let it go. Maybe I missed it, but I never saw anyone from HTC say that- I see players suggesting that's the case.
One thing that hasn't seemed very accurate in the past are the theories put forward by players regarding HT's reasoning behind changes.

Out of curiouosity, how many of you only flew bombers for your first few years?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 08:13:42 PM by hubsonfire »
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #176 on: March 20, 2007, 09:37:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Oleg
Beat this. Your math dont work.

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html

Cruising speed: 150 mph


Does it say what altitude that best cruise speed is achieved?  I saw on another site that it was 150 mph at 6,000 ft.  That also doesn't tell you the configuration of the plane for that cruise speed either.  

The charts I referenced, posted below, are USAAF charts that were used for mission planning.  




A mission to Berlin from England typically covered 1800 miles (and that's not a straight shot great circle route either, but a tactical route that took them north of the Netherlands and Denmark to avoid flak and fighters).  According to the mission logs posted on http://www.398th.org, the missions lasted between 8-10 hours.  So, the planes would have had to average 180-225 mph ground speed to make the mission in the times listed.  Ground speed is roughly equivalent to TAS when there's no wind taken into account.  Given that the routes were typically mirrored we could generalize and say that the headwind and tailwind components cancelled each other out, so average ground speed would equal average true air speed.  That mission time includes the 30-45 minutes it took to form up and begin their climb.  They climbed at 300 fpm (a typical ROC for B-17's on a tactical mission) so the first 1.5 hours of that time was merely forming up and climbing out.  They could not have flown a 150 TAS cruise at altitude and made that mission time, period, not to mention keep the plane at altitude at that speed, which is again 100 IAS.  That's straight math for you.  

If I can't change your mind after this, I'm not going to, regardless.

Offline 999000

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #177 on: March 20, 2007, 09:48:12 PM »
Hub,..you state "playing deathstar at tree top level?"..wait now I thought I was "cruisemissle on a kasmikasi run"... as you stated? ...which is it? ...Hub seriously when was the last time you attacked my B17's?...are we playing the same game?.....And why do you say such dissperaging things about someone  that are not ground in reality?....Hub you are a liar...and its diffucult for any of us to beleive anything you say.
999000.

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #178 on: March 20, 2007, 09:56:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Oleg
Beat this. Your math dont work.

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html

Cruising speed: 150 mph


his math was correct... 150 true is 100 indicated at FL250.. now, if B17's flew around at 100 indicated, I will not presume to know..


ahh.. stoney74 posts real data and proves it.. they aint to fly around at 150mph tas..
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 10:01:57 PM by kvuo75 »
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline Angry Samoan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1104
Triple Buffs Should GO
« Reply #179 on: March 20, 2007, 10:03:40 PM »
Leave buffs alone!!

If you think your a fighter jock,

Learn how to engage them. Learn how to Escort. Learn how to defend against them.

Only thing that should be fixed is the AOA on the drop.