It ain't the graphics that are bad, its the way the game is made

[batch]

While I would agree that the OP went about things entirely the wrong way..... doesnt it seem the conversation has come full circle a bit?

So many have spent the last few days flaming and saying that changes to the game have nothing to do with gameplay and instead its the players who drive gameplay. Now those very same people are suggesting changes to the game to drive gameplay?

[gyrene81]

While I would agree that the OP went about things entirely the wrong way..... doesnt it seem the conversation has come full circle a bit?

So many have spent the last few days flaming and saying that changes to the game have nothing to do with gameplay and instead its the players who drive gameplay. Now those very same people are suggesting changes to the game to drive gameplay?

Only to stop some players from exploiting certain aspects..a.k.a. "gaming the game". There are more people who don't exploit such things than there are who do so the idea still stands...the players dictate gameplay in a conscious manner.

[hitech]

No attitude intended.  Honestly, if putting in the angle limiter isn't an answer, and the bomb bay modeling wouldn't change it, I was simply asking what you think really would change and/or fix the issue of 4 engine bombers being able to dive bomb the way they do currently.

I do not agree with the premises of this statement. You claim there is an issue to fix with out any facts that there is an issue to fix,rather that people who do not fly bombers much do not like the tactics the bombers are using. But as normal many people wish to use selective realism. They only wish to complain about the Bombers when any plane that caries bombs even on the wings have the same issues. These same people are not up in arms about being able to shoot bullets when out side of real world parameters.

No one also has in any way showed that the current use of bombers is bad for game play, they just claim it should be changed because they do not like what ever the target is being destroyed, so they search for an excuse to have it changed.

HiTech

[Strip]

Hitech,
For me the lancstuka is the most unhistorical aspect of the game aside from having three countries. As I already mentioned, in terms of targets being destroyed I could careless. How would one prove that they are bad for game play in your eyes?

Strip

[Vudak]

Let me preface this by saying I am horrible at all forms of math, and I've never studied the bomb release mechanisms for these aircraft.

That being said,

any plane that caries bombs even on the wings have the same issues.

Just confused me beyond belief.

I would have thought that the internal bombs (at least the last few on the stick) would need much gentler angles to avoid impacting against the releasing aircraft than a bomb falling "externally" off a wing.

Did internal ordinance have some sort of propulsion out of the aircraft, and not just rely on gravity?

(I'm not trying to argue anything, just figure out what's going on).

[moot]

Batch, re-read the posts...  Of course the game sets the scene for gameplay.  But not as much as players, with AH.  It's not such a simple thing.. Depending on the players, it could be the game that's most decisive of what gameplay turns out to be (e.g. if players were flawlessly disciplined).  But that's not how it is right now, and for a while now, in AH.  And arguing that players are the main drivers of gameplay doesn't exclude asking for realistic fundamentals like bombs released thru the bombers' roof.  That's not tantamount to admitting bombs flying thru the roof of bombers is one of the top few major factors in all of AH's gameplay.

Strip I'd say you have to find a clear case for it being unfair.. as was e.g. stick stirring to induce warps.  I know and agree with formations being used in ways that're too gamey, but I can't think of any case where it'd be possible to do something about it without penalizing other players that do nothing wrong.

Vudak I think that's a reference to wings having only a small vulnerable area directly above the bomb, whereas internal bombs were enclosed inside a whole bomb bay.  So even though internal bombs had to safely travel out of the bay before being out of their danger zone, the basic principle is the same.. You have to let gravity accelerate the bombs to a safe distance before being free of collision risk.  Which is why some people will argue to limit internal bomb release to some dive angles: because past a certain release angle, the bombs wouldnt get out of the bomb bay and into the outside air's drag as quick as they would from level.  Of course you have to keep in mind both gravity and the plane's acceleration in 3D.

[Masherbrum]

 

[moot]

Mash -  You have to be precise what's insane.  I.E. why it's insane if at no point in the dive does the plane exceed its structural limits.  If it doesn't, you're penalizing fair gameplayers too.  You have to find a clear thing that distinguishes fair (even if eccentric) from unfair tactics, like warps were for stick stirring.


edit -  hehe

[Rebel]

I do not agree with the premises of this statement.

 

Fair nuff.  

You claim there is an issue to fix with out any facts that there is an issue to fix,rather that people who do not fly bombers much do not like the tactics the bombers are using. But as normal many people wish to use selective realism. They only wish to complain about the Bombers when any plane that caries bombs even on the wings have the same issues. These same people are not up in arms about being able to shoot bullets when out side of real world parameters.

Okay, I'm assuming you're talking about bomb collisions with releasing a/c.  I'm 100% for that.  Dropping bombs while inverted should cost the airplane a wing, if not more.  

However, that being said, a 4 engined bomber has a massively heavier payload then say your Me-110 diving on a field.  Using the capability of diving at a 45-90 degree angle they can significantly damage an airfield, and ruin an entire fight in a single dive.  Could they do it level?  Sure, but it's much much harder (i.e., the way it should be according to popular opinion).  

Granted a flight of singe or twin engined a/c (like say ten or more) can accomplish the same thing, but the idea of a 4 engined bomber diving in the way they do currently doesn't sit right with a lot of people.    

No one also has in any way showed that the current use of bombers is bad for game play, they just claim it should be changed because they do not like what ever the target is being destroyed, so they search for an excuse to have it changed.

HiTech

I believe the issue is not the targets being destroyed, but rather the manner in which they're being destroyed.  

If a squad of Lancasters cruises over a field at 25K unopposed and drops every singler hangar at a field, you'll hear cries of "Fun police strike again!" - but even through that people will acknowledge it was a legitimate toolshed op, that's what the hangars are there for.  To be destroyed.  

But if you see a Lancaster screaming in a dive and doing the same thing, it generates an entirely different response.  There's no way a 4 engine bomber could sustain the forces these things are capable of in-game, and it just looks silly.  The only images we've ever seen of bombers in these kinds of angles are when they're spinning out of control heading for terra firma.  

100% realism = no fun at all (see Targetware), and I realize the need to balance it (meaning realism vs playability), but having that kind of firepower being delivered that accurately with that kind of ease does indeed affect gameplay to a significant degree.  

Anyway, thanks for reading.    If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  Please feel free to let me know why.  

Also that bomb collision thing- any chance of us getting it?

Keep up the good work.  

[Kazaa]

The last time I saw a Lancstuka was in 2005.

[moot]

However, that being said, a 4 engined bomber has a massively heavier payload then say your Me-110 diving on a field.  Using the capability of diving at a 45-90 degree angle they can significantly damage an airfield, and ruin an entire fight in a single dive. 

How is that more damaging than level bombing?  If you mean that they can point at more targets by virtue of aiming the bombs with their diving velocity instead of being limited by level-bombing's speed restriction (sight calibration), that's not enough to hold against them.  How is it inherently wrong for a heavy like the Lanc to dive bomb, if he's not exceeding the structural limits? 
And I'm not on the lancstukas' side here.. but the only way you can do something about them is fairly.   i.e. not throwing the baby (fair players) with the bathwater (unfair exploits).  And I don't wanna speak for HTC or anything, but someone (Pyro or HT) did say they were considering voiding damage if the damager didn't survive his drop for x amount of time (seconds) after impact.  That must've been back in the days where tiffie raids really did have a considerable amount of suiciders.

[Ack-Ack]

What you wish on modeling the internal bay collisions is the correct way to go. While it can not be completely detailed, it could be fairly representative of a real bomb bay.

But in the scream of things it is fairly low on the list simply because it really would not effect game play that much. People would just learn very quickly how to get into dropping parameters and hence things would not really change much.

HiTech

From the developer's standpoint, why would adding a dive angle limiter be a bad game design decision?  Not trying to be a smart ass, just a professional curiousity.


ack-ack

[Rebel]

How is that more damaging than level bombing? 

 
Read the full post- it's not more damaging, but it's more accurate.

 

If you mean that they can point at more targets by virtue of aiming the bombs with their diving velocity instead of being limited by level-bombing's speed restriction (sight calibration), that's not enough to hold against them.  How is it inherently wrong for a heavy like the Lanc to dive bomb, if he's not exceeding the structural limits? 

Technically, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it, but do you really think 4 engined bombers were capable of the things they are in here?  I acknowledge the need for playability (i.e. an F4U doesn't flip over on it's back at low speed when you firewall the throttle), but c'mon.
 

And I'm not on the lancstukas' side here.. but the only way you can do something about them is fairly.   i.e. not throwing the baby (fair players) with the bathwater (unfair exploits).  And I don't wanna speak for HTC or anything, but someone (Pyro or HT) did say they were considering voiding damage if the damager didn't survive his drop for x amount of time (seconds) after impact.  That must've been back in the days where tiffie raids really did have a considerable amount of suiciders.

Well suicide bombing and voiding damage is one thing worth considering.

Now taking into consideration that in the game's current state, it is *not* an unfair exploit (like the terrain vis GV tricks of yore), but also considering the sheer amount of firepower being delivered that accurately (a full lanc bay on different targets with dive bombing precision)- an issue does in fact exist.

Now it's really up to Hitech and crew to decide if it really is a gameplay concern, or just a matter of players whining about the fights being killed (a la the CV hardness threads). 

I for one am for bomb collision on releasing a/c, and a fresh look at the f/m's and/or the structural limits of the 4 engined bombers. 

[RTHolmes]

IIRC, from what you posted, lancs could do 35 degrees..

I checked again and its 30deg for diving. a bigger restriction for the cuban-8/yoyoing lancstuka might be the 10deg roll limitation. BTW these are RL limitations, from the book, not artificial limits to tweak gameplay.

Release only in F6? no - common tactics were to have a lead buff aim and then call release for the rest of the box, so release in F1 mode has to be allowed. (great fun btw, try it )

Release in F3? I cant see any justification for this at all. as I understand it F3 is only enabled to simulate the peripheral view that having a crew of gunners provides for defense against fighters. Personally I'd disable firing of any weapons in F3 mode.

Release in F5? Of course not. In fact, why is this even enabled in the MA?

[Yeager]

For the Record:  I LOVE killing Lancasters flown by VF15 in MidWar.  It is always some of the most satifying killing I do in there.

I have issues with some aspects of the game but I do not sweat it.  No point in getting all lathered up, but I do post in the bugs forum from time to time.  It gets read in there and if HTC figures it matters then they will fix it.  If they figure it doesn't matter then they will not fix it.  If I get lathered up (or burned out) I take a break.  So far I have always returned.  Some day I will not.  No big deal.

Some of you folks take yourselves, and the game, way too seriously.