Fixing bombers

[BnZs]

Because the alternative is to not see bombers get used in the game.  More accurate guns is the lesser of the two evils.

I reject both of these statements, especially the latter. Bombers have such a high payload of destruction that players would find a way to get them to target. (Read: Effective escort. This would be a GOOD thing.)

And again, the 109E is not particularly playable in the MA. You don't see it often, and it has a bad k/d ratio. So why not jazz it's cannons up a bit, make them more like Hispanos, make the old Emil more playable in the MA? Not different in principle, except that accurizing all aerial flex guns is worse, it has effects that distort way more than one model.

[BnZs]

EDIT:

Well, ok.  They could increase flexible and turret mounted gun dispersion to historical levels, reduce bomb accuracy and increase the formation size from 3 to 10.

,

A better situation than current actually. But it is not needed. Look, tanks are basically helpless against bombers and fighter-bombers without wirble or fighter cover. No one weeps and moans and suggest they be given "drones" or the ability to easily shoot down diving P-47s, you get my drift?

[Lusche]

I reject both of these statements, especially the latter. Bombers have such a high payload of destruction that players would find a way to get them to target. (Read: Effective escort. This would be a GOOD thing.)

And again, the 109E is not particularly playable in the MA. You don't see it often, and it has a bad k/d ratio. So why not jazz it's cannons up a bit, make them more like Hispanos, make the old Emil more playable in the MA? Not different in principle, except that accurizing all aerial flex guns is worse, it has effects that distort way more than one model.

one fighter vs all bombers.

[BnZs]

one fighter vs all bombers.

So? The principle is the same. And as I said, giving fled mounted guns unreal accuracy has far wider effects than giving one fighter abilities it didn't have, such as the F2B example.

In AHII the Defiant would be a rousing success 

[BnZs]

one fighter vs all bombers.

Oh...and those tanks...ALL TANKS...as I say, almost helpless against airpower without allies in flaks or fighters. Mebbe we should give 'em "Wirble drones"? 

[Lusche]

So? The principle is the same

No.

[Karnak]

I reject both of these statements, especially the latter. Bombers have such a high payload of destruction that players would find a way to get them to target. (Read: Effective escort. This would be a GOOD thing.)

No, they would not.

Look, I don't want to pull the BS "I've been here longer than you so I've seen things you haven't, but in this case it is true. Originally AH's bombsight worked such that the bomb would land where ever the cross hair was when it was dropped.  No calibration at all.  If you think what we have now is lazer guided, oh boy would you be appalled at what we had then.

So HTC came up with a more complex bombsight.  You had to click the target on the clipboard map to set target altitude, then, once speed was stabilized, you had to hold the crosshairs steady on a terrain feature while holding the appropriate key depressed (Y key I think, but I may have changed it) and the longer you held the key down and the steadier you held the crosshairs the more accurate your bombsight would be.  I liked it.  It made bombing effectively more of a challenge, but one that I could reliably accomplish.  The player base as a whole?  They hated it.  Bombers were abandoned wholesale in favor of fighter-bombers.  B-17s and Lancasters would usually be used as dive bombers.  Of the players who tried to level bomb using the bombsight, most missed, often by hundreds or thousands of yards.

HTC was forced to reduce the bombsight's complexity to the point that all we do now is hold down a key to calibrate speed.  No more target selecting and no more holding the crosshairs steady.  Just blindly hold a key down, the longer the better.

And again, the 109E is not particularly playable in the MA. You don't see it often, and it has a bad k/d ratio. So why not jazz it's cannons up a bit, make them more like Hispanos, make the old Emil more playable in the MA? Not different in principle, except that accurizing all aerial flex guns is worse, it has effects that distort way more than one model.

The Bf109E-4 is not an entire class of aircraft.  While it may not be particularly viable, the Bf109K-4 or Spitfire Mk XVI are.  You're suggesting changes that would render not only the G4M1 and He111 useless, but also the Lancaster and B-17G as well.

[hitech]

I think even the premise is invalid. That being bombers were easy meat in real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt

Is one of the worst raids in b17 history. But note this worse raid lost 60 of 291 b17's.  How many fighters were used in the attack against the b17s?

In real life losses like those are  unsustainable, but in AH it does not matter , there is an unlimited supply.

If the same numbers were used in AH by experienced gunners and experienced fighters, What do you believe the outcome would be?

My guess is that even more b17s would be killed then in the real mission.

HiTech

[Lusche]

My guess is that even more b17s would be killed then in the real mission.

Absolutely. If you scale the numbers down to AH size like 30 bombers -> 10 formation (these days quite a sizeable raid) and send them to the central strats on a large map, they would not lose just 6 bombers... they could call themselves lucky when getting 6 (=3 formations) to the target. And that's not even with flying at "real" cruise speeds...

AH combat is much more bloody for any participant, fighters, bombers, vehicles.

[earl1937]

I think even the premise is invalid. That being bombers were easy meat in real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt

Is one of the worst raids in b17 history. But note this worse raid lost 60 of 291 b17's.  How many fighters were used in the attack against the b17s?

In real life losses like those are  unsustainable, but in AH it does not matter , there is an unlimited supply.

If the same numbers were used in AH by experienced gunners and experienced fighters, What do you believe the outcome would be?

My guess is that even more b17s would be killed then in the real mission.

HiTech

I run 17's to the strats about twice a week, usually have 10 to 15 formations. We might not always get all three aircraft in each element home, but most of the time, we do get the pilots home. GHI and Snailman seem to be the best 163 pilots that we encounter,  and on last mission, we killed 3 163's. Most of my guys are getting to be good enough gunners that they can defend themselves very well.
If they listen to me and stagger their altitudes, and stack the "boxes", then we can usually defend ourselves very well. Its the guys who drift off a 1K or more that get shot down, but the guys who stick with the main body have a good chance of hitting the strats and getting home.

[BnZs]

 They hated it.  Bombers were abandoned wholesale in favor of fighter-bombers.  B-17s and Lancasters would usually be used as dive bombers.  Of the players who tried to level bomb using the bombsight, most missed, often by hundreds or thousands of yards.

Good points. I wouldn't suggest making the bomb-sight more complex, I would suggest making the bombs themselves less accurate, if anything. Shrug, but it may be an insoluble problem on that front, I grant you.

 You're suggesting changes that would render not only the G4M1 and He111 useless, but also the Lancaster and B-17G as well.

I suggested lowering the ENY of the Big 3 to five, reducing the number of positions a single player could fire at once from infinite to 3. Perhaps also putting a more realistic dispersion on all flex guns, if indeed they are off. I do not believe these changers would render the Big 3 useless. Surely we can at least agree that the ENY suggestion is reasonable, the last thing the outnumbered side needs is the most effective bombers in the hangar simply taking down their hangars so they don't even get to make "last stands".

[Wiley]

Good points. I wouldn't suggest making the bomb-sight more complex, I would suggest making the bombs themselves less accurate, if anything. Shrug, but it may be an insoluble problem on that front, I grant you.
I suggested lowering the ENY of the Big 3 to five, reducing the number of positions a single player could fire at once from infinite to 3. Perhaps also putting a more realistic dispersion on all flex guns, if indeed they are off. I do not believe these changers would render the Big 3 useless. Surely we can at least agree that the ENY suggestion is reasonable, the last thing the outnumbered side needs is the most effective bombers in the hangar simply taking down their hangars so they don't even get to make "last stands".

Where is the gameplay impact?  About all your argument seems to be based on is theorycraft.  Looking at the numbers puts this amount of ord and guns in the hands of one player, and that's horribly wrong.  Yet somehow, bombers sometimes make it to target and sometimes don't.  Impenetrable boxes (heh) of bombers are not running the arena into the ground.  Simply put, what is the actual gameplay impacting problem that needs to be solved?

The GV's are a separate issue.

Wiley.

[jeffdn]

Simply put, what is the actual gameplay impacting problem that needs to be solved?

There isn't one. The bomber/fighter balance in the game, particularly in the LWMA, is just fine. If anything, bombers, even B-17s in a formation, are at a disadvantage to a well-flown fighter. He is trying to pull the realism argument that "if I can look up gun camera videos on YouTube of an Me-109 flying up the dead-six of a B-17 and blow it to bits without getting hurt, I should be able to do that in the game." It simply doesn't make sense, when considering gameplay and fun for all.

[BnZs]

Where is the gameplay impact?  About all your argument seems to be based on is theorycraft.  Looking at the numbers puts this amount of ord and guns in the hands of one player, and that's horribly wrong.  Yet somehow, bombers sometimes make it to target and sometimes don't.  Impenetrable boxes (heh) of bombers are not running the arena into the ground.  Simply put, what is the actual gameplay impacting problem that needs to be solved?

The GV's are a separate issue.

Wiley.

Most fights seem to be ended by a bomber crippling the hangars. Often before the "fight" has even begun. It's disappointing whether you're on the losing or the so-called "winning" side in such engagements. It also seems like 4 out 5 CV furballs get scuttled quickly, whether its your CV or theirs. The effort needed to kill the fight and the difficulty of preventing that same seems unbalanced. Certainly this is the case when one side is badly outnumbered anyway. Thus the ENY suggestion. Also, those who regularly hunt and kill the toughest buffs deserve more perks than they are getting atm IMO.

[BnZs]

It simply doesn't make sense, when considering gameplay and fun for all.

I am considering gameplay and fun for all. The historical references are mainly for perspective. Bombers are the dominant force in the "war", which wouldn't be so bad except that that dominance comes through *fight killing*. No one escorts them because they don't need it, and a huge number of players will ignore a set of buffs in favor of pouncing on fighters because they've learned the former is not worth the trouble. It all seems pretty distorted.