Bombsight calibration accuracy - involve the human

[Zimme83]

I'm just saying that this affect the k/d ratio for bombers. This plus the fact that most fighter pilots don't use the advantages in speed and maneuverability they have over the buff but rather go into the area where its easiest to kill them is the reason buffs can have a relatively high k/d ratio.

[Zimme83]

And btw: One side effect of strategic bombing is that it force the enemy to divert forces from the front in order to defend the strategic targets so i dont see a problem that a single set of buffs require more than one fighter to up for him. Germany had atleast 600 fighters in their homeland for defence against bombers, fighters that where needed at the fronts.

[Karnak]

During WW2 raids (before 44-45 atleast) there where between 1-1,5 German fighters for every buff, while we in AH often see 1 fighter on 3 buffs. That is the fighter pilots biggest problem. No coordination. Up 3-4 fighters in a coordinated attack on a set of buffs and the buffs will be no way near a 1:3 k/d ratio, 1:10 maybe. The buffs in AH have better defence than real world buffs against a single threat with all guns firing at a single point. Against multiple threats dough, its  just the opposite if u don't bring gunners. Multiple fighters dramatically decrease the buffs rate of survival.

Just want to clarify here that bomber guns do not fire at a single point unless you are very liberal with your definition of the word "point".

The guns from an individual bomber fire in parallel to one another and the guns from the three bombers cross each other at 500 yards.

[BnZs]

Allow me to demonstrate where your logic fails *yet again* by offering the following example:

Tanks rolling into their cities also forced the enemy to divert forces to defend against them. Therefore, using your logic, as an individual player in Aces High I should be allowed to control 3 tanks or perhaps 1 tank and 2 defending flak "drones" (with the lethality turned way up above reality), so that on average it takes THREE jabo/attack aircraft from the other side to defeat my vehicle "formation". Never mind that in reality it would have taken multiple crewmen to roll all these vehicles, while the jabo/attack pilots I'm fighting against will still be getting to control one and only one aircraft for their efforts.

The above hypothetical is exactly the sort of non sequitur you are demonstrating in the statement quoted below.

And btw: One side effect of strategic bombing is that it force the enemy to divert forces from the front in order to defend the strategic targets so i dont see a problem that a single set of buffs require more than one fighter to up for him. Germany had atleast 600 fighters in their homeland for defence against bombers, fighters that where needed at the fronts.

Let me separate this bit out for emphasis:

so i dont see a problem that a single set of buffs require more than one fighter to up for him.

Really? You don't see the fundamental imbalance with multiple players being required to counter the efforts of a single player, on average? Ponder my "vehicle formation" hypothetical above, and perhaps enlightenment will begin to slowly seep in through the granite. If an individual player like yourself can take 3 buffs to attack a base merely by checking a box in hangar, why should another individual player not similarly be allowed to take 3 GVs to attack a base?

Hell, if, as an individual player, you are allowed to control 3 buffs on attack, why should another individual player not be allowed to control 3 fighters to intercept you? The only difference here is that in reality it only took only 3 individuals to fly 3 single seat interceptors, while it took about 30 trained crewmen to operate the heavies ONE player routinely operates effectively in AH. Therefore, while the idea of one player being able to click a box in the hangar and bring 3 fighters to the fight IS absurd, it is still less absurd than the bomber situation, by a factor of about 10 I'd say.

We all understand that there were 100 bomber raids in WWII. There were also massive fighter sweeps and interceptions, and situations where hundreds of tanks were thundering across the plains. What you have not and cannot offer is any reasonable argument for why a SINGLE bomber player in this game should be allowed to have the *effectiveness* of 100 bombers which required 1,000 crew members to operate, while individual JABO, fighter, and GV players remain limited to having the effectiveness of ONE, count 'em, ONE aircraft or GV.

[Xavier]

What you have not and cannot offer is any reasonable argument for why a SINGLE bomber player in this game should be allowed to have the *effectiveness* of 100 bombers which required 1,000 crew members to operate, while individual JABO, fighter, and GV players remain limited to having the effectiveness of ONE, count 'em, ONE aircraft or GV.

Except they don't. Both GVs and fighters can shoot way more accurately in game than in real life. And virtually all pilots in-game have way more kills than +90% of WWII pilots. That's lots and lots of practice, even in situations that would get you killed in real life. We have no wing flex, no calibration problems, no slipstream from a bomber's propeller, no wind or turbulence to speak of. I've seen plenty of players destroy a bomber formation in a single pass, and they've done it dozens of times. Do you think any single WWII pilot did that? No, because this is a sim, not real life. It's easier. Do you think any WWII pilot could change gun convergence (and do it perfectly) just by point and clicking in the hangar like we do? No, of course not.

Of course bombers have it easier here than in real life. Wind or turbulence isn't an issue so any bombsight can perform flawlessly. That same lack of turbulence allows flex mounted guns to have better accuracy, but that works for fighters too.

You're complaining about bombers being too effective because they lack realism, when all other vehicle types are modelled in the same way and in the same medium. Of course a bomber here is more effective than a bomber in real life. Just like fighters, GVs or even ack.


Or you could realize that the 3 bomber formation was introduced for balancing purposes, from a single bomber being a free kill to 3 bombers being an almost free kill.

[BnZs]

Except they don't. Both GVs and fighters can shoot way more accurately in game than in real life.

They MAY shoot more accurately than in real life, but at least fighters and GVs don't come in threes and HTC doesn't try to model them in such a way that a single player can effectively do the work of up to *thirty* crewmen.

Also, I should point out that IF a flex mounted weapon like the tailgun of a bomber is showing no more dispersion than a fixed weapon, like a nose-mounted .50, then that is a problem, for obvious reasons. Need to test this.

And virtually all pilots in-game have way more kills than +90% of WWII pilots. That's lots and lots of practice, even in situations that would get you killed in real life.

This is true, but completely irrelevant to our discussion. And it may explain the fighter/GV accuracy you perceive as too high.

You're complaining about bombers being too effective because they lack realism, when all other vehicle types are modelled in the same way and in the same medium.

But they are clearly NOT modeled the same way. You can up ONE single-seat fighter, a craft manned in real life by...one person. You can up some multi-crew vehicles, but you still only get one vehicle. In neither case do you get to look around in F3 view. When you are in a field gun, you can't make all the other field guns fire at the bandit along with the one you are actually operating. So plainly, to say all aircraft and vehicle types are modeled "the same" is a false.

Or you could realize that the 3 bomber formation was introduced for balancing purposes, from a single bomber being a free kill to 3 bombers being an almost free kill.

I imagine that if a single man took off in a B-17 in RL it would be an even easier kill than in AH. He'd certainly have a difficult time trimming the plane from the pilot's seat, then scurrying to the various gun positions to defend, then jumping into the bombardier's position when it was time to bomb. Sounds like quite the athletic feat. And how on earth would he fly, gun, and bomb for all THREE planes? Some clever arrangement of pulleys and wires?

I'm just responding to the figures that people are bandying about. If someone says that it on average takes more than one guy in a fighter to counter one guy in bombers, and that is okay, then their idea of balance is skewed all out of whack. And then Zimme comes along and ups the ante, claiming that one guy in bombers is/should be able to have the effect on an airbase that took ONE HUNDRED BOMBERS in the real world. His words, not mine. Again, this is not "balance" by any reasonable definition.

[Xavier]

They MAY shoot more accurately than in real life,

They do. The wing flex alone would give us worse dispersion than we have in-game. Even more if more real life variables were modelled, such as turbulence, wind and the like.

but at least fighters and GVs don't come in threes and HTC doesn't try to model them in such a way that a single player can effectively do the work of up to *thirty* crewmen.

Fighters and GVs don't come in threes because it would be absurd and wouldn't serve any balancing purposes. You've already seen that a formation (3 bombers) takes less effort to kill than a fighter. And yes, a single player can do the work of thirty crewmen, because it's a game. And when you take a GV you're doing the work of several crewmen, and when you're turning a CV group you're doing the work of hundreds.

Also, I should point out that IF a flex mounted weapon like the tailgun of a bomber is showing no more dispersion than a fixed weapon, like a nose-mounted .50, then that is a problem, for obvious reasons. Need to test this.

If they do indeed show less dispersion it should be adressed. But in your endless crusade for realism you never ask for more historical accuracy in fighter gunnery, just asking for something that nerfs bombers. It's quite interesting.

This is true, but completely irrelevant to our discussion. And it may explain the fighter/GV accuracy you perceive as too high.

It is completely relevant. If a fighter in game has a way more effective than in real life, it's obvious that they'll be more effective against bombers too (and they are). Also, now player skill seems to be irrelevant but you were using it as an argument a few posts before.

So plainly, to say all aircraft and vehicle types are modeled "the same" is a false.

I was refering to the physics of Aces High II, wind, turbulence and the like.

If someone says that it on average takes more than one guy in a fighter to counter one guy in bombers, and that is okay, then their idea of balance is skewed all out of whack.

What's your idea of balance?

[BnZs]

Fighters and GVs don't come in threes because it would be absurd

Non sequitur. Why would it be absurd? Looking at it mathematically, it seems far LESSS absurd for one player to control 3 single-seat fighters than for one player to control 3 planes that each required ten crew members.

 You've already seen that a formation (3 bombers) takes less effort to kill than a fighter.

I have NOT seen that. Per the example I gave earlier in the thread, I have seen many instances where an individual is MORE formidable in a formation of buffs against a fighter than they are in another fighter. And bombers take ALOT more effort to stop than a jabo trying to do the same job, which is purely a matter of fly up behind him (dead six approach is fine), he either pickles his bombs and maneuvers or gets shot down.

I should also point out that one guy in a tank, he realistically has almost no defense against jabo/attack planes, yet no one seriously suggests he should be given some kind of "flak drones" to prevent him from being a helpless target. Why is that? It's the same principle as the bomber arguments I hear.

Also, now player skill seems to be irrelevant but you were using it as an argument a few posts before.

I cited an example where one player was easily shot down another player when both were flying dedicated fighters (you know the planes designed to FIGHT, that PROTECTED bombers from other FIGHTERS historically), yet this same player was much more formidable in a flight of NOE B-26s. Skill level was simply mentioned as a potential confounding variable that was eliminated because the same two players participated in all iterations of the "experiment", thus the relative skill level remained a constant.

Now what does the overall higher level of practice AH players get in all aspects of flying and shooting have to do with how things should be modeled? I thought the idea of this game was to model the GEAR as realistically as possible and let the chips fall where they may regarding how people use that gear.

What's your idea of balance?

Well, it taking more than one player in fighters on average to put a stop to a run by a *one* person in heavy bombers is certainly not balance, and one player being allowed to have the effect of one hundred bombers, or one hundred anything else, on an airbase or the war, that would obviously not be balance either, despite the half-baked arguments some have made on this thread.

I think bombers doing things more resembling the jobs they were useful for doing, bomber interception being more rewarding and not potentially frustrating drudgery, and fighter escort actually serving a needed purpose for mission completion, these things would be good for gameplay. After all, many of us were inspired to love this genre by history of the air battles high over the skies of occupied Europe, so any play that got closer to those battles would be good.

I think the idea that Baldeagle mentioned, of allowing more than 2 players to join buffs as crew members, is a bone I'd definitely like to see thrown in along with anything I'd suggest to "nerf" bombers as you put it. This would allow for a realistic and probably fun team experience...we've all seen "12 o'clock High" and "Memphis Belle" after all.

[Xavier]

I thought the idea of this game was to model the GEAR as realistically as possible and let the chips fall where they may regarding how people use that gear.

Having a single player control 3 planes isn't realistic, but having flights of lone bombers would be even less realistic. It's the lesser evil. I'll post a longer reply when I get back!

[BnZs]

Having a single player control 3 planes isn't realistic, but having flights of lone bombers would be even less realistic. It's the lesser evil. I'll post a longer reply when I get back!

Why would it be even less realistic? Sounds pretty realistic to only have one plane IF you can only have one pilot. Note, I am not necessarily saying formations should be eliminated, but it is an example of the numerous unrealistic things given only to bombers in this game. When Bozon mentioned slightly modifying them, the entitlement for bombers attitude ran wild.

[Xavier]

Why would it be even less realistic? Sounds pretty realistic to only have one plane IF you can only have one pilot.

Because having single bombers would mean that all of them would become hangar queens, except the Mossie and maybe the 234. We would have a flight sim with no bombers, while almost half of all aircraft produced during WWII were bombers.

Why are some planes perked? Because otherwise they would be used en masse and therefore unbalance the game. Same with bomber formations, it's a compromise made to balance the game.

[Brooke]

Air Warrior had only single bombers (no formations).  Flying a bomber was usually (except for special situations like the "Blood Dragon", see here if interested:  http://www.gonzoville.com/games/t-rex-ala-mode/ ) guaranteed death if any fighter was around.

Having flown a lot of Air Warrior and a lot of Aces High, I prefer the Aces High method.  It seems like a near-perfect balance having a trio of bombers.

[Wmaker]

They do. The wing flex alone would give us worse dispersion than we have in-game.

Wing guns already have more dispersion in game compared to a fuselage mounted gun.

[BnZs]

Wing guns already have more dispersion in game compared to a fuselage mounted gun.

Good information. 

[Zimme83]

Wing guns already have more dispersion in game compared to a fuselage mounted gun.

Noting that have any practical effect on aiming. Wing flex would mess up aiming a lot in high g maneuvers. Doesn't really matter dough. Most players, both in fighters and bombers are way better gunners than anyone where irl. Because we can still learn even if we get killed. A bomber pilot with a few thousand sorties will become very good at defending himself. those pilots are very hard to beat, just like there are fighter pilots that can up almost any plane and still is close to unbeatable for most other players. That's the boring side effect of a game. No matter how much harder we make aiming and shooting, people will still learn and adapt.

We have a lot of compromises with reality in order to make the game playable, base taking is one thing. lack of technical failures or need for ground rearm and -fueling before take off. One player can control CV groups w thousands of crew members, we have no wheather and so on. All this is necessary in order to make a game that as many as possible can enjoy.

I will gladly see a manual bomb sight that require something more than just the "y" button but adding random errors into the game that are impossible to predict or compensate for, no matter what it is i strongly oppose.