Author Topic: 27 August 1943 - Salute! (Read 613 times)

funked · « **on:** July 01, 2000, 02:38:00 PM »

That was fun! Salute to Busc and Salute to all flyers! Considering there was no regisration, everybody did a great job getting organized and getting down to business.

One problem was that the Axis was able to hunt down the bombers inside Allied territory. The bombers never reached bombing altitude, nor did they get anywhere near the target. This is OK if you are a fighter pilot but not much fun for the bombers.

Some suggestions:

- Move the Allied take-off fields further from the target.

- Or let the bombers use A1.

- Or delay Axis roll time to represent a "scramble".

Kieren · « **Reply #1 on:** July 01, 2000, 02:57:00 PM »

Yup, these are good suggestions. I have yet to fly a scenario as a buff and even see the target, let alone bomb it.

funked · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2000, 03:12:00 PM »

Another few of suggestions:

1. Friendly collisions are fun. But it is not possible for bomber pilots to fly realistic (very close) formations while manning the guns. In the future, if friendly collisions are on, each bomber needs to have a dedicated gunner aboard.

2. We should use the mission planner. It would save so much time in briefing walkons and figuring out force ratios. The walkons instantly know what the aircraft choices, fields, fields, loadouts, missions, and routes. And the commanders can instantly see how many pilots have selected a certain flight or aircraft type.

3. Everybody needs to know what time we start. Right now the US is on daylight savings time and I think this causes some confusion when subtracting from GMT.

Start times can be given in Zulu/UTC/GMT and people can go here to see what time it is locally. People in the US can go here to get the current time and offset to GMT for their time zone.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-01-2000).]

Kieren · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2000, 08:46:00 PM »

I was very nearly a casualty of that time confusion! Thanks for the link!

Yes, using the mission planner is good, IF the other side cannot see your mission. Can they?

Naso · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2000, 02:31:00 AM »

No, Kieren, they cannot see missions on other side.

IMHO, the mission planner is the ULTIMATE tool to arrange a very fun scenario, writing down a mission for each flight to arrange Take off timing and a correct course.

Was very nice the idea to close airfields after take off.

The gunner on board is a MUST if you want to fly box formation even with friendly collision off, this mean you have to enlist more players on the buff's side.

BTW this was a great and fun scenario, we 205s (only 4 of us) made a scout mission NW in search of the bombers, we was intercepted by the p38 and manage to escape SE.
When the guys in 109 call for b17 position, we was 10 miles Nord at 20k, and manage to intercept the escaping buffs, killing 3 of them.
Last bomber was mine, and i was downed by him (1-1, Kieren!

).
Great emotion in the search fase, guessing "where the f... they are??", followed by the adrenaline rush "buffs on sight, i go in, BANZAAAIIIII !!"

<S> all, and <S> busc, great scenario.

Graywolf · « **Reply #5 on:** July 03, 2000, 10:43:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Naso:

The gunner on board is a MUST if you want to fly box formation even with friendly collision off, this mean you have to enlist more players on the buff's side.

[/B]

I disagree completely =) It's prefectly possible to fly a 100 yard close formation on autotrim, there is no problem gunning and flying in formation. Even with the (approx) 30 yard position lag due to network latency I see.

------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

funked · « **Reply #6 on:** July 03, 2000, 11:19:00 AM »

How can you maintain formation while firing? You can't be looking at the lead while looking at the enemy.

Graywolf · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2000, 12:51:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funked:
How can you maintain formation while firing? You can't be looking at the lead while looking at the enemy.

By flying on autotrim. Once you're settled and in formation nothing should change while you're gunning.

------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

Kieren · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2000, 01:08:00 PM »

I'm with Funked on this one... autotrim does keep you level, but if one of you is flying 299 degrees and the other one 302 degrees... you get the idea.

I had to watch myself while in the fight, and my film shows me making corrections to regain the formation. Had I been under attack this would not have been possible.

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 07-03-2000).]

Fluf · « **Reply #9 on:** July 04, 2000, 03:44:00 PM »

Am I mistaken in recalling that daylight bomber formations had each buff at a slightly different altitude in order to avoid collisions due to speed changes caused by damage? When I look at films and photos of 8th airforce boxes this seems to be true. If such formations are used in our scenarios, friendly collisions 'on' seems entirely feasible. I flew a p38 in this one and thoroughly enjoyed the excitment of the friendly-fire and friendly collisions-on!
Friendly collisions were a big problem with RL formations (2 of Chuck Yeager's 5-kills-in-a-day sortie were actually the results of a collision caused by an evading 109 hitting his wingman). Let's try to keep this skill testing danger present in our scenarios if possible, along with friendly fire. I had to hold off firing on a 205 attacking Kieren for fear of hitting him myself. This has a major influence on game play.

As an aside,it is most amusing to note that while our valiant 205 opponents thought we were intercepting them, we thought they were intercepting us! It was a thrill to see that formation of Macchis in my first AH scenario!

Salute to all who organized this scenario, you've whetted my appetite for more!

Fluf

funked · « **Reply #10 on:** July 04, 2000, 04:47:00 PM »

You're assuming the formation is not climbing or descending.

Graywolf · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2000, 10:15:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funked:
You're assuming the formation is not climbing or descending.

Sorry, I still disagree, but then I've been flying tight bomber formations since the days one Warbirds 1.x

Maybe you guys need a little more practice =)

------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

busc · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2000, 05:05:00 PM »

HI ALL

first of all thanks a lot for the positive comments about the scenario, thanks.

About problems...

- I agree about choosin a more distant field to prevent buffs to get intercepted before reachin a decent altitude (btw, i do this for gameplay necessity, in historical ww2, bombers flown at about 20-25k and slow when on target).

- I dont know what is the best choice about friendly collisions, i agree w/funked about the problems in keepin formation, but still i would like to mantain friendly collisions on...One ide---> what about the buff leaders brief pilots tellin em to put their big noses pointed on the headin tht he calls when boogeys are spotted and then to hit X..This could help maintainin a fairly close form, wht U think?

PS I am not sure if next scenario will be my lil japaneese adventure or vadr's one night channel scenario...But dont worry, one thing is sure, a new scenario is comin soon

PPS I am losin my time around a lil project that could provide us a great and extremely realistic "Forced Max Altitude Device"...if this mad project works...start savin coins for ur retirement from job..U ll never want to come back to the real world ;>] BuSc

funked · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2000, 05:42:00 PM »

Gray maybe we have a different definition of tight. What my WB unit (925 CABS) calls tight is not flyable on autotrim in either sim.

I just don't want to see bombers compromising their formation to make gunning possible. I guess for the typical loose gaggles one sees from most units it might work. But for TIGHT stuff no way.

I, for one, will never fly a bomber in one of these events if collisions are on and I have to gun.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 07-07-2000).]