Bomber auto-guns when on the scope

[Karnak]

10 or so formations x 9 on 'wingman link' = at least nine players manning guns + escorts = none of them making it to target?

Not hard to imagine.  Bombers are pretty much free kills if you're not stupid about your attack pattern.

[Lusche]

10 or so formations x 9 on 'wingman link' = at least nine players manning guns + escorts = none of them making it to target?

Not all of them had been in one single formation, as I mentioned in my post. I can't recall the exact number of players, the planes were mainly flying in two distinct formations (but still quite close to each other) of about 4-6 players each and maybe 3-4 stragglers at the time I came across them. So it might be even more than 9 formations...

The majority of Knight interceptors were tail chasing them (as usually they didn't fly an intercept course), but despite this, they were indeed all wiped out. Flying at 22k only made it easy for interceptors to get to alt, catch up and to set up attack runs with relative ease.

And this was not an exceptionally unlucky noob raid either. any non-29 buff raid not utilizing massive levels of escorts or very high (27k+) altitudes will be smashed going 3-5 sectors into enemy territory - if there is any notable opposition. Been there, done that a lot of time.
I have even seen several 30k B-29 raids suffering much more than 50% losses, though they almost make it to the target at least.

[Lusche]

For comparison: The Black Thursday Schweinfurt raid had (according to Wikipedia) 77 B-17 lost out of 291.

On a reasonable AH scale that would mean 10 player (30 bomber) strat raid in the MA would lose only about 8 planes total. That would be considered a very lucky mission, even when not flying at RL speeds and alts...

[icepac]

.otto b- 0.5 b+ 4 b++ 4 rt 0 rg D12

[DubiousKB]

I don't disagrre with the OP idea..... I just understand the counter to auto-gunners.... Perhaps a middle road can be established....

While in bombardier position and in scope; only a single gun on any one of your aircraft can be AI-manned at a given time. THis allows for some notification to the player that they are being attacked at the same time giving MINIMAL defence while in the scope... I think what the OP is looking for is a little security in the scope. I khnow the feeling of simply waiting for the bullet sounds as my cross hairs draw near the target... 

What can't be implemented is generic AI gunners.... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO    Fighter pilots whines would be heard from 30K down to the deck... 

But what about a single gun? Whichever has the closest shot on an enemy which is in it's firing arc will take small bursts. Again, this would have to be limited by way of amount of ammo expended or accuracy of AI gunner as to not give an advantage to a single human player but rather give them a small bread crumb.

I'd like to see this implemented in such a way that AI gunners don't get kills on fighters unless the fighter refuses to break off a sustained attack on the formation at close range. I'd like to see this system provide harrassing fire at fighters whilst simultanioulsly notifiyng the player in the scope that he/she is being attacked and SHOULD man his/her guns....

I get where you're coming from but you have to be careful not to tip the balance scale, it ISNT fair that a bomber somehow has more automation than a fighter simply because "the bomber has more little men in them"... But Fighter bullies, it also isn't fair that the jobs of many on a bomber must be done by a lone controller, and if the controller (player) isn't in a given position, that position is non-existent....

My $.02

[Ack-Ack]

I don't think the bombers in AH are in need of better defense, they are already much harder to kill than in real life

That's like claiming ack is far more lethal in game than it was in real life, which is a fallacy.

ack-ack

[Tinkles]

That's like claiming ack is far more lethal in game than it was in real life, which is a fallacy.

ack-ack

So true..   

I don't disagrre with the OP idea..... I just understand the counter to auto-gunners.... Perhaps a middle road can be established....

While in bombardier position and in scope; only a single gun on any one of your aircraft can be AI-manned at a given time. THis allows for some notification to the player that they are being attacked at the same time giving MINIMAL defence while in the scope... I think what the OP is looking for is a little security in the scope. I khnow the feeling of simply waiting for the bullet sounds as my cross hairs draw near the target... 

What can't be implemented is generic AI gunners.... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO    Fighter pilots whines would be heard from 30K down to the deck... 

But what about a single gun? Whichever has the closest shot on an enemy which is in it's firing arc will take small bursts. Again, this would have to be limited by way of amount of ammo expended or accuracy of AI gunner as to not give an advantage to a single human player but rather give them a small bread crumb.

I'd like to see this implemented in such a way that AI gunners don't get kills on fighters unless the fighter refuses to break off a sustained attack on the formation at close range. I'd like to see this system provide harrassing fire at fighters whilst simultanioulsly notifiyng the player in the scope that he/she is being attacked and SHOULD man his/her guns....

I get where you're coming from but you have to be careful not to tip the balance scale, it ISNT fair that a bomber somehow has more automation than a fighter simply because "the bomber has more little men in them"... But Fighter bullies, it also isn't fair that the jobs of many on a bomber must be done by a lone controller, and if the controller (player) isn't in a given position, that position is non-existent....

My $.02

That... sounds reasonable to me. Having been on both sides of that situation, you simply hang high 4-5 o clock on the enemy bombers until they drop (did it yesterday on a formation of b26s).  While they are dropping or starting to go over the target you start your attack run. Most of the time I hear the first bombs starting to fall as the bomber loses it's wing.

I see no issue with what Dubious has added. +1

Tinkles

<<S>>

[Halo46]

Bad gunners will just fly their entire missions in the scope if the AI gives any chance of survival at all. It would just be abused.

[Tinkles]

Bad gunners will just fly their entire missions in the scope if the AI gives any chance of survival at all. It would just be abused.

Then that makes them even easier prey.   

Tinkles

<<S>>

[Krusty]

Lusche, you also have to consider relative sizes of the bombers vs the fighters attacking and those escorting. In WW2 for example, you had many hundreds of bombers filling an entire sky and MAYBE on a good day 100 fighters attacking them, and throw in about a 1:4 escort ratio for the bombers. Imagine your MA sortie you described with only about 1 or 2 attackers and only 2 escorts. The mission would have done far better.

Not to mention probably most of the AH bomber losses are related to or directly attributed to NOE runs, base steamrolling, or suicide-bombing GVs (not to mention bomb-and-bailers).

Try comparing more of an FSO or scenario setting and its results to WW2. These bombers are faster, higher, better defended, and overall harder to chase and kill on a stat per stat basis.

[Lusche]

Lusche, you also have to consider relative sizes of the bombers vs the fighters attacking and those escorting. In WW2 for example, you had many hundreds of bombers filling an entire sky and MAYBE on a good day 100 fighters attacking them, and throw in about a 1:4 escort ratio for the bombers. Imagine your MA sortie you described with only about 1 or 2 attackers and only 2 escorts. The mission would have done far better.

Not the Black Thursday raid I was talking about, which had many more interceptors than bombers, and no escorts past the border at all. I was specifically referring to that and other similar "small scale" raids with bad or catastrophic losses.

Not to mention probably most of the AH bomber losses are related to or directly attributed to NOE runs, base steamrolling, or suicide-bombing GVs (not to mention bomb-and-bailers).

I had not mentioned any overall loss rate. I had written about altutide level bombing as a comment on statements like this one

If bombers were this hard to shoot down then the allies would not have had to spend time and money to develop the P-51 to escort bombers deep into Germany and the bomber fleets would have shoot down the entire Luftwaffe by 1943.

[PanosGR]

i woulkd love though to see auto-guns or AI gunners inb Bf-110, Me-410, il-2, Stuka and in general in every single or twin engine bomber or fighter bomber with a rear gunner ofcourse that doesnt have the formation option

[Lone82]

My $.02

You threw your 2 cents in but only get a penny for your thoughts.... 50% loss on your hard earned cash

[caldera]

+1 on AI gunners - if - the players killed by AI guns don't count as kills for the bomber pilot.

[715]

I wouldn't care at all if the OP's wish was granted- it's quite logical.

Me: one fragile 7300 lb plane with two guns (of those that can do any damage to the buffs at all).

Bomber pilot: three 48,000 lb very difficult to damage planes with a total of 36 point and click guns firing at me.

I don't like that math, so I ignore bombers.  So go ahead, make bombers harder to destroy... by all means. 

(And please don't tell me I'm stupid and don't know how to attack bombers- that may be true, but I watch other people try and the vast majority go down in flames after getting at most one out of three of the bomber pilot's planes.)