Suicide bombers and why

[SIG220]

I aint no fighter jock.............. and I would not perk stuff   "to death". Players must have access to stuff .

Any system must enable us to fly a bomber even if we dont have perks to fill it  (or 3 of them) full of 1000/2000lb bombs. Plus we only lose those perks if we dont bring the bombers back.............. its about making repeated heavily loaded suicide expensive ............. not about denying folk the rides they want

Your propositions on whole are extremely unreasonable and biased.   Perking ALL Attack Bombers??  That is totally unnecessary.   Penalizing bombers that bail?   OK, if you want to do that, then be equal and penalize fighter pilots that bail too.   Perking heavier bomb loads?   OK, then perk heavier ord packages for fighters too.

Your suggestions here are all so totally one sided against bombers.

Again, I think that some of your suggestions that I mentioned previously to stop these dive bombing buff formations are excellent.   And I agree that people should be using bombers in an historically accurate role.   That is what I generally try to do.   I always level bomb when going after a CV with anything like a formation of B-26's.

But implementing everything that you suggest here is way, way overkill to address this issue of the kamikaze bomber formations, and downright unreasonable.   I would certainly stop playing the game, if they were all put into effect.   


_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________

[EskimoJoe]

At any rate, I don't think HTC is going to re-coad the game based upon Toonces' recommendations

 

[moot]

Your suggestions here are all so totally one sided against bombers.

No.. HTC just needs to get the cashflow of perk points right, if they implement Tilt's perk ordnance idea.

[Bruv119]

Sig I think your way off the mark m8y.

Guys like tilt, lynx, Hammy or even myself, to a certain degree, love bombing.  It isnt about winning or losing its about preventing the whole bomber war from being a complete joke! 

It will install a little respect for the Bomber guys and hopefully promote it so that the guys who can hit a 2 pence piece from 20k get the respect they deserve.

The hope that people will think "i'm going to do my damdest to get this crate home".  To save a perk here and there.  Of course we aren't talking harsh amounts of perks just enough to achieve the above sentiments.

We arent against bombers by all means.  The only people who would object to such an idea would be the ones we are trying to prevent.  Everyone else would make use of the different combinations of ordnance. 

I rarely lose a whole set because I can gun 

[SD67]

I hate not landing my sorties

[Tilt]

Your propositions on whole are extremely unreasonable and biased.   Perking ALL Attack Bombers??  That is totally unnecessary.   

I have not proposed to perk all attack bombers............. it would be unreasonable to do so and as you say it is totally unnecessary. Players must be able to access all bombers free of perks (except such as the Arado 234).

What I propose is that heavy load outs are perked (possibly those using 1000/2000lb bombs) and that formations are perked. Plus many other points which do not seem to be in dispute here.

To repeat the perks are lost only when the aircraft do not return. Suicide them and the player loses the relevant perks, hopefully creating greater incentive to bring the aircraft back to base.

Moot is spot on that the perk system should be balanced. The reward for returning intact should enable perks to be earned to sustain the odd loss of perks due to loss of formation planes without having all a players access to heavy loadouts and formations removed due to one poor mission.

The core principle is one where persistant suiciding incurrs such loss of perks that heavy loadouts and formations become in accessable (Whilst still giving access to moderate loadouts for single aircraft). Where as a normal pattern of play mixed with successfull and some unsuccessful missions will maintain a perk base that gives players full access to heavy loadouts and formations.

Once this principle is accepted the devil (as Moot ponts out) is in the detail. The detail being the establishment of the value of perks spent and earned to strike the balance required.

[LYNX]

as quoted by SIG220

Your propositions on whole are extremely unreasonable and biased.   Perking ALL Attack Bombers??  That is totally unnecessary.   Penalizing bombers that bail?   OK, if you want to do that, then be equal and penalize fighter pilots that bail too.   Perking heavier bomb loads?   OK, then perk heavier ord packages for fighters too.

Calm down a bit mate.  Have a think about it with relation to the suicider / bomb and bailer.  Then think how it would or could impact your style of game play.  Not being funny with you but could you come back and define whats the bad parts in Tilts proposition.  How you feel it would swing a negative shadow on your game.

Personally as a strat player I could live with the whole deal that proposed.  Equally I could live without the attack perk system and taking away F3 view for certain planes.  For me it wouldn't be a bother either way.

In your above quote I have some sympathies with you as far as fighters bailing are concerned.  However they impact the game far less than a set of bombers and less frequently.  To the point of being negligible although annoying. 

By the way they have perked bombers in Early War Arena.  May won't to pop along and see how it works.

[Tilt]

 OK, if you want to do that, then be equal and penalize fighter pilots that bail too.   Perking heavier bomb loads?   OK, then perk heavier ord packages for fighters too.

You are quite correct here IMO

To address this point.....I would propose that fighters deposit the same perks for heavier loadouts.............

(Infact in my opinion any fighter that carries bombs is  defacto an attacker first and a fighter second................ he certainly has not taken a loadout designed for air superiority or air interception.)

But I digress..............  if perks were to be deposited at a 1000lb (bomb type) threshold then this would also apply to fighters and such fighters that persistantly suicided into enemy bases would lose those perks...............

But there is a dilema here....would they (should they) lose fighter perks????

IMO they should not but neither should they lose bomber perks. That is why I believe that there should be a clasification for Attack just as there is for fighter, Bomber, vehicle etc and that this should be the banner under which "attackers" (be they fighters with bombs or attack classified bombers) should earn and spend their perks.

I have attempted to explain the whole idea before............. this is not new. Please see the link in my sig

[LYNX]

Just a couple more screenies of guys headed for the

Orange arena field A69.  Town is very close to the field as you can see from the manned ack screenie. 


Do they have a chance of surviving ?



Ack gets one set while the other goes up with his bombs...determined to get the South pad FH's

Crazy thing is if they spend about another 20 minutes to get altitude and actually calibrated bombed they would have taken 90% of the town out plus close the Fighter hangers.

[SIG220]

The only people who would object to such an idea would be the ones we are trying to prevent.

Obviously, you have not listened to what I have said in my objections, and how I described how I play the game.   Otherwise, you would not make such a statement, unless you are deliberately trying to imply that I am a liar and/or one of those suicidal bombers.

I consequently won't waste my breath anymore on you.

_____________________________ ______________

[LYNX]

Here's an eye opener.  Some stats from end of last TOD.

Plane v Ostie v plane  plane v ship/gunner v plane

AR234-------48----24---AR234-----2----------185
B17--------201---700---B17--------1----------779
B26--------184---651---B26--------3---------1368
JU88--------92---341---JU88-------2---------1456
Lanc------1255--1917---Lanc-------1---------1531

Says alot don't it

[Tilt]

This tour to date

Model type Lancaster III Kills Ostwind=356, Panzer IV H=190, P-51D=169, Spitfire Mk XVI=125, M-16=122

Model type Lancaster III Deaths P-51D=745, Ship Gunner=675, La-7=612, N1K2=575, Ostwind=552

Model type B-24J Kills P-51D=345, Spitfire Mk XVI=264, La-7=229, N1K2=153, Ostwind=141

Model type B-24J Deaths P-51D=858, N1K2=592, Ship Gunner=586, La-7=575, Spitfire Mk XVI=543, Typhoon IB=342, Ostwind=326

Model type B-17G Deaths P-51D=514, Ship Gunner=462, La-7=421, Spitfire Mk XVI=391, N1K2=362, Ostwind=227



We see that the Lancaster is presently high amongst the aircraft of choice for ground attack v vehicles..........

What does surprise me also is the P51 ( an aircraft famed for escort and air superiority, but basically lacking the cannon required to intercept heavy buffs) is the number 1 buff killer     I cry Bull hit!!

 

[Rich46yo]

Bruv  I'll try that thread again in another 4 years ..... what a cluster .  Then again with all the spanners on the boards what else could they do.   Like the game mate...spanners win again.  wtg spanners

How very usefully this system could be.  If I don't like a guys opinion or just the cut of his jib.  All I need do is open new threads to derail anything of importance to him u me and all in sundry.   

                            Lynx what I want to know is why you thought there could be an intelligent, introspective discussion here, without the one line spam artists, in the bloody first place? Be that as it may I think we should start outing these dive bombing Lanc heros or find some way to get AH to change the use of level heavy bombers for this kinda of gamey play. Its even gamier to see them dive bombing heavy tanks and then bailing when they run out of bombs only to up a fresh set.

[Anaxogoras]

I've been lurking...

The reason why ground attack lancs, no-damage-bail-outs and other similar chicanery has to be stopped: it will lose HTC business.

People pay to play AH because it is fun and sort-of-historical.  When gameplay suffers because good parameters are not in place for how people can play the game, business will go somewhere else.  Whatever can be abused, will be abused.

When I climb to 30k ft in a 109K-4 to intercept a formation of B-24s, only to watch them bail out once I'm in icon range... that's when I feel like closing my account.

[Kweassa]

The reason why ground attack lancs, no-damage-bail-outs and other similar chicanery has to be stopped: it will lose HTC business.

 No it won't.

 You grossly underestimate the resilience of the n00b in adapting to a game they play, while at the same time grossly overestimate the threats and cussing of dissatisified few people on the boards.

 When something changes, people spit and cuss and whine and throw a tantrum for about a month. And then, after that, they just adapt to it and do what they can.

 It's always been that way.