Bomber speed suggestion

[Motherland]

Saddling up on even a lone American heavy is a pretty good way to die fast in AHII.

If you have cannons and enough speed to get into ~300 yards quickly then a lone heavy bomber is meat on the table. The only thing I find odd about this is that the gunners seem nearly invulnerable to fire in Aces High, while from what I understand being a tail or a ball gunner was a highly dangerous job, and if you look at gun cameras they're rarely firing (since by the time that the fighter is that close they've been incapacitated or killed).

[BnZs]

The same as the MA?

The k/d for B-17s and B-24s seems to between .33 and .38 consistently in the MA. Planes are the majority of kills for these two types.

The ratio fighters killed by buffs to buffs killed by fighters in frame 3 of the last FSO was 35/95, .36.

Interestingly, when you read the event logs it becomes apparent that a significant number of buffs downed in the last FSO were brought down by friendly fire!

[BnZs]

If you have cannons and enough speed to get into ~300 yards quickly then a lone heavy bomber is meat on the table.

I disagree in the case of the dead-astern attack. .50 calibers firing on you from a perfectly steady platform...at best it tends to be a recipe for one dead bomber+one dead/severely damaged fighter.

The only thing I find odd about this is that the gunners seem nearly invulnerable to fire in Aces High, while from what I understand being a tail or a ball gunner was a highly dangerous job, and if you look at gun cameras they're rarely firing (since by the time that the fighter is that close they've been incapacitated or killed).

Correct. The iron gunner problem something that deserves attention.

[B4Buster]

The k/d for B-17s and B-24s seems to between .33 and .38 consistently in the MA. Planes are the majority of kills for these two types.

The ratio fighters killed by buffs to buffs killed by fighters in frame 3 of the last FSO was 35/95, .36.

Interestingly, when you read the event logs it becomes apparent that a significant number of buffs downed in the last FSO were brought down by friendly fire!

I think this is why so many fighters are downed by bombers in FSO:



Tight formation makes it impossible for a lone fighter to make an attack without getting lit up. The FSO bomber K/D seems low I think, I would have thought it would have been higher than that.
As for the MA statistics, that seems about right. There's alot of guys that will bomb and bail, or divebomb, ripping their wings off and augering.


I guess I'm just confused now...3 bombers get downed for every fighter...I don't see a problem with that.

[BnZs]

I guess I'm just confused now...3 bombers get downed for every fighter...I don't see a problem with that.

Is it accurate? That is the question.

Now, the problem? Picture this: A squadron-sized number of individuals in P-47s, a competitive fighter plane that can supposedly defend itself gets bounced by a similar number of German fighters and is slaughtered to the last man, the German fighters in this instance attaining an exchange rate of 2.5:1 against the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter airplane.

Now picture a scenario where a similar number of Germans bounce a similar number of individual players in the light bombers, and the Germans get an exchange rate of 1.5:1 while the buffs complete their mission and RTB...sounds a little odd, no?

Picture fighter-escorts diving to buff formations for protection!!!! It happened.

I actually believe the CiC of last FSO could have achieved better results by sending nothing *but* players in massive bomber formations.

These happenstances convince me that "the silly penny has been dropped in the stupid machine" so to speak as regards bomber lethality vs. interceptors.

Maybe I just think the job of escort ought to have some sort of meaning in these events, too.

[B4Buster]

Is it accurate? That is the question.

Now, the problem? Picture this: A squadron-sized number of individuals in P-47s, a competitive fighter plane that can supposedly defend itself gets bounced by a similar number of German fighters and is slaughtered to the last man, the German fighters in this instance attaining an exchange rate of 2.5:1 against the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter airplane.

Now picture a scenario where a similar number of Germans bounce a similar number of individual players in the light bombers, and the Germans get an exchange rate of 1.5:1 while the buffs complete their mission and RTB...sounds a little odd, no?

Picture fighter-escorts diving to buff formations for protection!!!! It happened.

I actually believe the CiC of last FSO could have achieved better results by sending nothing *but* players in massive bomber formations.

These happenstances convince me that "the silly penny has been dropped in the stupid machine" so to speak as regards bomber lethality vs. interceptors.

Maybe I just think the job of escort ought to have some sort of meaning in these events, too.

BnZs...whether it's accurate or not is a great question. I'll have too look into that..

The difference betweeb bouncing a P-47 and a bomber is like night and day IMO.

The fighter is manuverable, but it lacks defensive firepower, and requires alot less rounds to knock it down.
It's funny you mention the escorts diving to the bombers for help, because that's what happened with us last frame. I belive we had two squads escorting our flight of 26s. They were quickly overwhelmed, so we told them to dive to us so we could clear them 

I think bomber K/D (in FSO aleast) just comes down to organization and teamwork used by the opposing sides. I can tell you, our 26s weren't running full power to target in the last frame, yet we had great success. Our tight formation and greater cartoon - plane  - piloting kept us alive. Every formation of enemy planes that attacked us broke up after their first pass. Numbers will never match real life until the fear of death is implemented in the game, which we all know can't happen...because it's a game!  (well for most of us anyway)

[BnZs]

BnZs...whether it's accurate or not is a great question. I'll have too look into that..

The difference betweeb bouncing a P-47 and a bomber is like night and day IMO.

Yes...the single seat fighter SHOULD have the better chance than the bomber, or it makesthe trouble and expense that went into building fighters, training fighter pilots, and finally designing one that could escort the buffs all the way to target and back a rather moot point. Lets face it, as it stands in-game, player for player right now the average P-51 is less difficult and dangerous to engage and kill than the V of bombers it is escorting.

[Stoney]

Correct. The iron gunner problem something that deserves attention.

I agree whole-heartedly with this, and I'll take it a bit further...

I have no idea what the coding requirement would be, but, I believe that if a gunner position is damaged, you shouldn't be able to fire from that position at all.  For example, if my tail gun is damaged, I can still man the position, track targets with the site, and when the trigger is pulled, any of the other guns in the formation that can bear on the target will fire at it.  In my opinion, if the turret you occupy is inoperative from damage or lack of ammo, you should have to be in a different, operative turret, in order to track targets and get the ability to have other gunner turrets focus fire.

However, I still think the lethality of the defensive fire is compounded by poor interceptor tactics.  Bombers would not nearly be as lethal if interceptor pilots flew like they were actually getting shot at.  But, fighter on fighter engagements during the war were rarely as lethal as they are in-game as well, so I'm not sure your comparison is proper.  I know we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

[Lusche]

Yes...the single seat fighter SHOULD have the better chance than the bomber, or it makesthe trouble and expense that went into building fighters, training fighter pilots, and finally designing one that could escort the buffs all the way to target and back a rather moot point. Lets face it, as it stands in-game, player for player right now the average P-51 is less difficult and dangerous to engage and kill than the V of bombers it is escorting.

I disagree.

There's nothing easier to kill in this game in the MA's as your average buff player. The only reason fighters get an average k/d vs B-24s of "only" 2.54-1 (tour 111) is because 90% of all fighter pilots attack exclusively from 6 o'clock. Which is about the same as if every fighter would exclusively go for the HO vs other fighters.
Almost every fighter in the planeset has a much higher K/D vs bombers than against other fighters.

For example, P51D:
K/D vs all fighters: 1.06
K/D VS
- B-17 2.29
- B-24 2.87
- Lanc 5.79

An enemy fighter will try to evade your attack and to maneuver so he will get into a favorable position. Or, if nothing else works, he will try to run.
A bomber will almost always leave the initiative to the fighter, flying on a steady course, giving the fighter an opportunity to set up his attack.
It's not the bombers speed that's the "problem". It's the lack of patience on the fighter pilots part. Fighters climbing for 5 Min's to get to a formation of B-24's and dying in 20 seconds instead of just investing another 3 minutes to get into position.
But even then, the overwhelming majority of bombers is getting slaughtered without ever reaching their target. Most of the time only those using speed % alt have a chance not only to get to target, but even back to base.

[BnZs]

I agree whole-heartedly with this, and I'll take it a bit further...

I have no idea what the coding requirement would be, but, I believe that if a gunner position is damaged, you shouldn't be able to fire from that position at all.  For example, if my tail gun is damaged, I can still man the position, track targets with the site, and when the trigger is pulled, any of the other guns in the formation that can bear on the target will fire at it.  In my opinion, if the turret you occupy is inoperative from damage or lack of ammo, you should have to be in a different, operative turret, in order to track targets and get the ability to have other gunner turrets focus fire.

Eh...kind of lukewarm on that idea. Forcing the gunner to switch turrets would basically be an annoyance but nothing more once gunners got the hang of it, so why bother adding it? The main point is, how difficult should it be to kill a tail-gunner protected mostly by plexiglass?

However, I still think the lethality of the defensive fire is compounded by poor interceptor tactics.  Bombers would not nearly be as lethal if interceptor pilots flew like they were actually getting shot at.  I know we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Considering that AH'ers are commonly attacking with identical/better angle-off than shows up in Luftwaffe gun camera footage, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Like I say, the main problem discussed always seem to have been getting the pilots to close in sufficiently and hit the buffs effectively at all, rather than how to survive the defensive fire.

On that subject, I am open to the possibility that while the buffs firepower may be a little too lethal, the buffs themselves may also be a little *too vulnerable* to 20mm and heavy machine-gun fire.

[Stoney]

Eh...kind of lukewarm on that idea. Forcing the gunner to switch turrets would basically be an annoyance but nothing more once gunners got the hang of it, so why bother adding it. The main point is, how difficult should it be to kill a tail-gunner protected mostly by plexiglass?

Well, because "firing" from the tail gun or top turret gives a much better field of fire and observation than say the waist gunner positions, for example.  That would be the penalty--either that or you have to change to another aircraft.

Considering that AH'ers are commonly attacking identical/better angle-off than shows up in Luftwaffe gun camera footage, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Like I say, the main problem discussed always seem to have been getting the pilots to close in sufficiently and hit the buffs effectively at all, rather than how to survive the defensive fire.

On that subject, I am open to the possibility that while the buffs firepower may be a little too lethal, the buffs themselves may also be a little *too vulnerable* to 20mm and heavy machine-gun fire.

I cut my teeth intercepting bombers in P-47s and I can tell you that even with 8 X Ma Deuce, you've got to be precise if you want a one pass kill.  I pretty much have a single type of attack I'll make with the Jug, and whenever I deviate from it, I die.  Whenever I stick to it, I kill all three planes without taking any damage at all. 

Most of that dead-six Luftwaffe gun footage is of damaged stragglers where there's no return fire, as you mentioned in another thread.  The problem in AH is that our pilots make the same attacks, just into the teeth of all that defensive fire that hasn't been reduced due to damage.  I think the durability of the bombers is fine.

[moot]

Historical trends aren't the gospel, accurate physics are.

[B4Buster]

I agree with Lusche. I find it much more difficult to shoot down bombers rather than fighters (most of the time). There are a few exceptions

[Lusche]

I agree with Lusche. I find it much more difficult to shoot down bombers rather than fighters (most of the time).

If you find shooting down bombers more difficult than shooting down fighters, you actually do not agree with Lusche

[BnZs]

  I pretty much have a single type of attack I'll make with the Jug, and whenever I deviate from it, I die. 

You've likely had hours and hours more practice than your typical pilot going into combat...I think that if attacking buffs without kicking the bucket had really required that sort of precision out of the poor Krauts, then it would have been the B-17s and not the 56th that attrited the Luftwaffe down and drop-tanks or North American Aviation's most famous bird would have been unnecessary inventions.