Increase the perk cost for the Me163

[MK-84]

Now that the strats are a truly valuable target  I wish that the Me163 has a base cost of 75 perks instead of 50.

I think that the new strat changes are the most exciting addition to AH, but, I do not think I've seen a single large bomber raid have members actually make it back to base.  This makes even a B29 raid a suicide, which I witnessed three days ago.  The reason is that the attackers bring bombers and long range escorts, but at the last moment near the target, the enemy brings up essentially spaceships!

     The 163's current perk cost made sense before the strat changes, but not now.  It is the only aircraft I feel like I am invincible in, even against a bomber stream.  The small fuel load does not matter because a large force attacking strats, tends to be at high altitude with ample warning now.
     The escorts can not effectivly defend against a 163, and neither can the bomber pilots.  Raising the perk cost will reduce the last minute defenders, which absolutely currently pwns the attacking force and will encourage a more methodical and intelligent defense.
     I believe this will be more fun for the attacking force, and the defending force.  I personally find the best sortie is to up against a large escorted bomber force at high alt and plot their direction, alt, target, plan an attack route....
     The 163 currently is too easily available and lessens gameplay for both the attackers and the defenders.

[SmokinLoon]

Agreed %100.  Anything below 30k should be an easy enough target for the Ta152 and other such high altitude bomber interceptors.   

I vote to give the Me163 a boost in perk value, 75 may be a bit too lean, imo. 

[Butcher]

Given the range, limited guns of the 163 - 50 perks is enough... idea is to deter people from raiding HQ every hour for giggles of knocking out someones radar.

You want the HQ, you face 163s.

[Citabria]

hq on most maps isn't hit because no bombers are interested in facing a bunch of 163s for a target that will be resupplied within 20 minutes or less even if the city is leveled.

most maps have a gv spawn or an airbase right next to the HQ making resupply less than a few minutes trip.

163s should be as expensive as the 262 because of the deterent they are to bombers and they numbers they are used in.

no one cares if they lose 50 perks when they can wipe out a b29 formation with impunity that costs 300 perks.

resupply broke the bomber game so long ago no one remembers what it was like to defend hq from constant bomber attack because it is still so easy to repair strat and hq that the strat game still has almost no effect on the "war".

hq should be a lot harder to resupply and the city complex should not be repairable at all. not with only 3 hour downtimes... up it to six hours and maybe. city was down 6 hours before the change.

the bombers dont hit hq because its not a worthwhile target.

[pembquist]

How about instead of increasing the perks they just randomly explode every now and then on takeoff. Or else you could have the occasional T-stoff leak and have the pilot dissolve?

[guncrasher]

hq on most maps isn't hit because no bombers are interested in facing a bunch of 163s for a target that will be resupplied within 20 minutes or less even if the city is leveled.

last time i tried to resupply the strats I spent more than 20 min actually several of us did.  we never got the strats back up to 100%.  I did 4 runs myself plus whatever the other guys did, the strats never went back up to 100%.


semp

[Zoney]

I would also like to see the 163 perk costs increased.

Reasons:

1.) Buffs have spent alot of time to get to an alt where they have a chance of making the drop.

2.) The aircraft was very rare in real life and prone to malfunctions

3.) Regular defenders in P47's, C-Hogs, 152's, Tempests, 262's and the like, have also spent a good deal of time getting in position for an intercept and it is a bit frustrating to have a few 163's come straight up and harvest the kills before the P47's, C-Hogs, 152's, Tempests, 262's can merge.

[donna43]

What MK-84 posted.  + 1   

[Chalenge]

The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct. I think the only reason the 163 we have squeaks by is the same reason that the P-47s and P-38s do (and Mossies and B-17s. . .) and that is because the cartoon pilots dont freeze or suffer the same problems at high altitudes that humans do.

[Tilt]

The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct.

Sounds like a good argument to model a slow onset to blackout at critically hi altitudes on those ac that did not carry the proper gear or cockpits.

Then both defenders and escorts will use the right bird for the job. The 163 ( and others not equipped) can still be used but time at 30k+ is limited pending slow decline into blackout. An RL solution to a a gamey over use of the 163.

[VonMessa]

Sounds like a good argument to model a slow onset to blackout at critically hi altitudes on those ac that did not carry the proper gear or cockpits.

Then both defenders and escorts will use the right bird for the job. The 163 ( and others not equipped) can still be used but time at 30k+ is limited pending slow decline into blackout. An RL solution to a a gamey over use of the 163.

They had oxygen, but that was the extent of it.

Komet pilots were put into a hypobaric chamber as part of their training regimen so that they could handle  the conditions at high altitudes better than the average person.  It only helped them to endure the stresses for a bit longer, though. It wasn't a good as a pressure suit would have been.  It only helped them to keep from passing out during the 2 or 3 passes that they were able to make before being forced to RTB.

Better than nothing, I suppose.

[Karnak]

The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct. I think the only reason the 163 we have squeaks by is the same reason that the P-47s and P-38s do (and Mossies and B-17s. . .) and that is because the cartoon pilots dont freeze or suffer the same problems at high altitudes that humans do.

FYI, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI was pressurized.

That said, I am aware of unpressurized Spitfires climbing to over 40,000ft during the war.

[Zoney]

The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct. I think the only reason the 163 we have squeaks by is the same reason that the P-47s and P-38s do (and Mossies and B-17s. . .) and that is because the cartoon pilots dont freeze or suffer the same problems at high altitudes that humans do.

Very interesting.  I continue to learn about WW2 aircraft.  At high alt, in a pressurized cockpit, what happened when a round suddenly pierced the cockpit and it suddenlly depressurized.

I would think this would have been catastrophic for the pilot.

Oh and, Chalenge is my friend

[Karnak]

WWII pressurization wasn't like airliner pressurization where it holds the internal pressure at a certain altitude, 8,000ft for airliners other than the 787's 6,000ft.  In the case of the Mosquito Mk XVI the pressurization reduced the apparent altitude by something like 6,000 to 8,000ft, meaning a Mosquito at 28,000ft would have an internal pressure as though it were at 21,000ft and unpressurized.

I have heard that B-29s depressurized before entering the combat zone, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of that claim.

[matt]

Given the range, limited guns of the 163 - 50 perks is enough... idea is to deter people from raiding HQ every hour for giggles of knocking out someones radar.

You want the HQ, you face 163s.

Agreed bombers need to stick together more fire power.
ive been on 5 strat runs 1 time i didnt make it back.
if you go in single good luck! -1