An interesting fix for high alt, high speed bombers

[Wiley]

Giving HTC's history of not applying arbitrary restrictions on the aircraft and gv models in the game (save for the reload times of the tanks), I don't look for them to do anything in terms of limiting speeds.  However, I could see them put some sort of a spread factor on bombs.  I don't know how it is coded now, but it sure seems like if everything is calibrated, etc, the bomb lands very close if not exactly on where a players aims regardless of altitude.  I think by default the impact zone should be a lot larger the higher up the bomb is dropped.  For example, if HTC currently has a cone attached to a bomber with the point attached to the plane and the further away the ground is from the plane the base of that cone should get bigger.  As it is, if it is at all, the cone (impact zone) is rather small.  If HTC has the ability to affect the size of that cone based on the speed of the bomber maybe that is the route they should go.        

I'm not fond of the arbitrary speed restriction idea, as much as it would benefit my bomber hunting endeavors.  I'm much more in favor of precision being brought a little more inline with reality.  The gunnery model is quite accurate regarding dispersion, bullet drop, effects of yaw...  Why not do the same with bombs?

Within the confines of the stuff the game models, I am almost always in favor of more realism as far as the physics go.

Wiley.

[Ack-Ack]

That's absurd. F4us are not good at that alt.

F4U-4s were.  During the Okinawa Campaign, Marine Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser and his wingmen in F4U-4s intercepted a IJAF Ki-45 above 45,000ft and brought it down.  They would have shot it down if the cannons didn't freeze, so they had to resort to chopping the Ki-45's tail up with their propellors.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

Why not do the same with bombs?

Bomb ballistics are already modeled, so I recall from about a decade ago when it was added.

The part that isn't modeled accurately is the bombsights.  AH did have a more complicated bombsight for a bit, one that can still be turned on, but you either found it just as easy as the current one or you couldn't hit anything with it.  The result was lots of dive bombing B-17s and Lancasters.  If they are blocked the option to dive bomb with the B-17 and Lancaster then the heavies would have had their numbers culled to the extreme.

The funny thing is that I wasn't aware they'd changed it to be easier for more than a year.  I just kept using the "hard" calibration and it kept working because the removed steps, marking the target's altitude and holding the crosshairs steady on a point to calibrate speed, didn't matter to the current system either way.

[Karnak]

F4U-4s were.  During the Okinawa Campaign, Marine Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser and his wingmen in F4U-4s intercepted a IJAF Ki-45 above 45,000ft and brought it down.  They would have shot it down if the cannons didn't freeze, so they had to resort to chopping the Ki-45's tail up with their propellors.

ack-ack

Ki-46, much lower altitude and no cannons on the F4Us.

[Old Sport]

Here's a Wishlist suggestion of several years ago about adding a parameter to control the drones' max speed.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,249443.msg3066353.html#msg3066353

Best.

[Debrody]

I think  the speeds of undamaged planes are fine but the drones should not be able to maintain formation with a dead engine unless the formation leader slows as well.

A few more of the many planes that can catch B29 at 30,000 feet.

mossie fighter

C205

yak9u

bf110g

If things go well, you might return to find yourself at 35,000 feet in a 110g with the cleanest loadout and 50 minutes fuel remaining..........over your HQ with a red dot 1/4 of a sector away.

In that scenario, the 110g will easily run down a B29 at 30,000 feet but beware the P47 often seen escorting very high B29s.

lol
An empty B29 can reach 380mph+ at 30k. The 110's maximum speed is nowhere near 380. The Mossie can sprint at 380mph, but only between 12-18K. At least the Jak can fly 5-7mph faster than the B29, at that alt...
How much time it takes to get to 30K? ~12 mins? How far a B29 can go in 12 mins?
How much time it takes to get above a 30k, 380mph the opponent, setting up a proper attack? How much fuel a C205 or a Jak9U has?
sheesh.

[icepac]

Icepac's just spouting a list of planes from the ah comparison charts. He's not talking from personal experience.

Simply looking at the chart doesn't tell you if it can effectively hunt bombers at 30k or not. That's absurd. F4us are not good at that alt. C2 is barely able to stay in the air, let alone maneuver and hunt. Same for most of your planes icepac. Like Kappa says, flying straight up a bomber's 6 oclock at 5mph closure rate does NOT an effective hunting strategy make.

Nope....wrong a usual Krusty.

All the planes I mentioned are in my stats as having killed B29s.......the only b29 kills I have at low altitude were with the yak9 when I flew NOE to what looked like thier intended landing field.

The list of planes I have successfully intercepted B29s with but failed to shoot them down is a lot bigger.

Here's one I did just for the benefit of this thread.

The only thing needing adjustment in bombers is the speed of the drones with engines out

[Hazard69]

The one thing that I have seen suggested that I liked was tying it to the drones.  If the drones would only fly at a cruise setting you'd have the choice of a single fast bomber, or a formation of cruising bombers.

Again: Too many of you are looking at history to define how the planes should be portrayed in AH. Look again. The same engines the bombers use are in use by fighters, yet the fighters are not limited. Why? Historically the reason bombers flew so much more slowly is that they needed the formations for survival. A formation of three aircraft is much easier to maintain at higher speeds than a formation of 300-1000. If you have ever tried to fly in formation as a bomber pilot you would realize the futility of doing so at high power settings, unless someone is willing to slow down.

So what if we worked on combining those logics in reverse?  
Reduce the bomber formation speed, and increase the number of buffs in a formation to, maybe 5? More spread, looks more carpet bombing (even if it isn't really), better defense for bombers, easier interception for fighters, more action for everybody, everybody happy?

As long as the buffs aren't given the ability to drop from individual planes, wont affect the gameplay too much I think (although I suspect the score hores might be upset since the outer fringes of the formation would probably be missing their precision drops on hangars and such anyways).

The funny thing is that I wasn't aware they'd changed it to be easier for more than a year.  I just kept using the "hard" calibration and it kept working because the removed steps, marking the target's altitude and holding the crosshairs steady on a point to calibrate speed, didn't matter to the current system either way.

Wait, that's not how its done nowadays? Dont you still have to hold a target centered in the bombsight to calibrate?

[icepac]

I never bomb over 220mph and I make sure I haven't done any course or speed corrections long before I drop.

[kappa]

Nope....wrong a usual Krusty.

All the planes I mentioned are in my stats as having killed B29s.......the only b29 kills I have at low altitude were with the yak9 when I flew NOE to what looked like thier intended landing field.

The list of planes I have successfully intercepted B29s with but failed to shoot them down is a lot bigger.

Here's one I did just for the benefit of this thread.

The only thing needing adjustment in bombers is the speed of the drones with engines out

(Image removed from quote.)

wow man...you're kinda obtuse? 

even with your own pic, you should be dead long before you get in gun range..

if that is your idea of effectively attacking b29s at 30k i believe our conversation is over..  lol

[Torquila]

I gotta agree here, I never get within 1.5k of bombers and for good reason. You are well within the kill zone there.

[icepac]

wow man...you're kinda obtuse? 

even with your own pic, you should be dead long before you get in gun range..

if that is your idea of effectively attacking b29s at 30k i believe our conversation is over..  lol

Obtuse?

My point is not whether I survive but the fact that I routinely kill the very planes everybody else says are uncatchable in planes they say can't catch them.

Had I known about the high buffs earlier, I would have gotten in a HO pass before creeping up dead six.

[kappa]

Obtuse?

My point is not whether I survive but the fact that I routinely kill the very planes everybody else says are uncatchable in planes they say can't catch them.

Had I known about the high buffs earlier, I would have gotten in a HO pass before creeping up dead six.

ok then.. who are the 'everybody else says are uncatchable' folks?  i don't think that is the point being made by anyone really...

[Karnak]

Wait, that's not how its done nowadays? Dont you still have to hold a target centered in the bombsight to calibrate?

Nope.  Just need to hold the key down, the longer you hold it down the closer to your speed it calibrates at.  Holding something in the crosshairs is completely unnecessary.

Obtuse?

My point is not whether I survive but the fact that I routinely kill the very planes everybody else says are uncatchable in planes they say can't catch them.

Had I known about the high buffs earlier, I would have gotten in a HO pass before creeping up dead six.

26.5k is significantly different than 30k and your claims about how easy it is to intercept and kill Ar234s, B-29s and Mosquitoes, which you constantly talk your self up at, are not nearly so easy as you make it out to be unless you have lots of warning and know where they are going.  Even then, you do a head on attack against them at 30k in most of what you mention you had damn well better kill them because you're never getting another shot.

[Baumer]

Glad to see that no matter how long I'm away some things never change. The argument that bomber engines are fragile and fighter engines are tough, is just ridiculous.

The truth of the matter is what makes intercepting high altitude bombers so difficult is a lack of clear information for the defenders. I blame this on the fact that the current clipboard radar is so limited in it's functional capabilities. What really needs to happen is for HTC to update the radar system to facilitate more flexibility and balance out the information inequity the interceptors face.

I would propose a radar setup that looks something like an airspace model (see below).



This way the radar range could be set at different altitudes and allow more time for the defenders to prepare for a proper intercept. And it would be best if this function could be controlled by the CM's for special events. With several different altitude increments.

Another clipboard change that would help is for the ability to click on a red dot on the map and turn on a visual trace of that targets flight path.  

And the final clipboard change would be to allow for a different type of dot to distinguish bombers from fighters.

By providing these three different pieces of information, interceptors would have a much better chance at success in my opinion.