Ok, fighter jocks, why is it "pig pile" on the BUFFs?

[LePaul]

I enjoy reading what you guys are posting and discussing, and I'll grant you that there are some issues that need looking into with the buffs.  For example,the ability to shoot thru its own structure (B-17) and also cruise on through to very high alts that you guys have conflicting data on.

But since the large majority of people in Aces are flying fighters, it strikes me more as a "pig pile"/"witch hunt" of those who fly the bombers.  Good grief, you guys want oodles of restrictions on the bombers, and people like Laz want them out all together because they disrupt his little furballs.  Get real!

I am simply fascintated at some of what is people suggested, or downright demanded by some.  Weaken the guns, weaken the engines, make the bombs inaccurate, make them easier to shoot down, make them take less damage...blah blah blah.

Can you imagine the flamefest that would happen if someone made such suggetions to a fighter in Aces High?  Oh, of course not, since most of you fly fighters    

The only instances I've seen of fighters being moaned over is the beloved N1K.  Sure we see an occasional blurb here or there on the Spit9 and La7's performance being a little too good to be true, but that's it.

But geesh, God forbid a Buff blast you out of the sky or bomb your bases.  Hey, with the attitudes I've been reading, clearly such instances need to be remedied because it certain wasnt due to good shooting or good aim in the Buffs, right?

Heck, the Lancaster has a big bullseye painted on it for you guys, what more do you want  

HTC:  The B-17 needs some looking at in regards to shooting thru itself to shoot down these guys.  And perhaps the hi alt performance is too good to be true.  I seldom fly higher than 22k because by time I get to the base, its already ours    Plus I prefer the Lancaster's loadout to the B17.

The Lancaster nose-turrent still has an issue with no icon showing, but the other turrents seem fine.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: LePaul ]

[Wilbus]

I agree on what you say LePaul, although I still do think the high alt performace should be toned down, a B17 shouldn't outmanuver a P51, and especially not a TA152 at 35k, it shouldn't outmanuver it anywhere.
The guns should remain as they are due to the lack of players flying bombers.

There is alot of buff batching going around, I am one of the people who do it but only when it comes to that high alt stuff. There are way too few dedicated buff pilots in AH and there has got to be a reason for it, HTC should make it more rewarding to fly buffs, more perks etc.
One very very good friend of mine is a dedicated buff pilot, wich is allso why he stopped flying AH for a while due to buff batching from other players, and maybe some other issues with them.

People who say Buffs should be taken out of AH are just plain Stu..... .
If they are taken out the game looses much of it's fun and more then just buff pilots would leave aswell.

[LePaul]

I agree completely with the points you've made.

Its pretty silly the personal attacks the bomber guys have to endure when this is disucssed.

Flying Knight last night, I was amused to see all the requests for Lancs/bombers at this and that location.  First they don't want us, then they do  

[Tac]

I agree with most of it. I would like the shoot-thru-structure and the "all guns point to same spot as gunner" and the high alt performance bs be fixed.

I dont want to see buffs become easy targets, that would screw their playability. I would suggest making them TWICE as tough to shoot down, but only IF the 3 points mentioned above are taken care of. A buff should not be able to be a 360 degree P-47 hitpower at convergence at any range -like firepower crate.

I said it a long time ago, make the other gun position fire at a random point in a 10 degree cone from the point the human gunner is aiming at. That would simulate several gunners trying to shoot at the same con, NOT firing at the exact same spot (which is the turbolaser effect!!). It would also give the buffs a MUCH higher chance of scoring a hit on attacking cons, but those hits would come from the gunner position that hit them (2X.50 max), not all the guns that could bear.

[hazed-]

I fly both fighters and bombers and my veiw is the mere fact that we KNOW the buff guns are slightly more powerfull than they were to help the single bomber flyer is thw whole problem.

for example a bomber is at 30k and a fighter climbs to defend the base he wants to use for next few sorties.as the fighter nears 30k he finds it increasingly difficult to catch the bomber.it outmanouvers him quite easily and the fighter pilot soon becomes annoyed at the time it takes and impatiently attacks getting shot down by a burst from the gunners.I cant tell you how many times ive done this.If after 2 or 3 passes with 20mm i have hit a bomber loads but notshot it down i usually get annoyed   and go in blasting and get killed.
Now as soon as the fighter pilot (me included) gets shot down the immediate thought is usually 'those damn guns are a joke'.
Now as a bomber pilot and a fan of the aircraft and the way they were used I personally would like to have no extra gunnery help.I would prefer that my 1000lbers cause widespread damage(LIKE REAL BOMBS) and I certainly wouldnt mind less accuracy if a near miss through blast radius does the job.I think those bomber pilots who feel they SHOULD be able to fight 1 v 1 with a fighter are mad BUT I do conceed that if they are too vulnerable in the unrealistic MA they will be less fun.BUT what about in scenarios and CT? where its supposed to be realistic? why do the bombers keep the bonus gunnery?
The answer?
make the bomber guns normal 50cals,that will stop the feeling of being unfairly killed.
ADD to the durability of the bombers,this will prolong fights and make it more likely the buff pilot will get enough normal 50cal hits to down the fighter.(on average it took 22 20mm hits to down a b17 in WW2 according to LW investigation of the b17 wrecks).
I think slightly tougher bombers with normal guns and bomb behaviour with the added blast radius on all bombs would be almost exactly the same for bomber fans and it would stop this anti-improvedgunnery feeling which as you can see i share.
I dont mind playing AH as is with concerns to bombers but i do feel its done wrong.

if you dont agree try bombing with B172 (the game) and you'll see CLEARLY that a successful drop which requires a fair smidgen of skill AND luck is much more rewarding than the AH thing of knowing, if we get to the target we dont miss.This pushes the whole emphasis of bombing in AH to the journey 'TO TARGET' rather than whether your good enough to actually HIT something.Dont you see the problem?

[Apache]

Buffs ruin the game as they are right now.

We "furballers" as some label us, relish the fight, the air combat, seeing if you can come out unscathed or maybe a little banged up but back just the same. It matters not to us how many fields we or the enemy has but simply the fight.

"Strat" fighters like to take out fields using jabo tactics. They have to come in heavy, fight thier way thru, then try to get out safely. This takes much skill & practice.
They also are more inclined to do defensive fighter sweeps because field status is their bread & butter, but the fight is still prime.

"Buffs" ruin these options for us. Sometimes as many as 30 or 40 fighters may be in an area, both furballers & strat guys doing thier thing. Along comes a buff, 1 guy and shuts down the hangars. Yes, fighters could go for them, but most of us don't bother anymore. Why should we? Climb to 30k plus where they are currently outperforming high alt fighters? Nope.

One of the best suggestions I've seen in a long time was virtual bomber wingmen. Don't know about the codeing difficulties but it seems that if the bomber gun range was toned back to more "realistic" (I hate using that word) settings and a bomber pilot could count on wingmen, then it would be more of a fight for the fighters. We could setup an attack properly instead of trying to beat guns that shouldn't be hittin' you in the first place.

IMHO of course.

[LePaul]

Good points, Tac.  The times I've flown fighters and chased after a B17, I've always managed to loose a wing tip or some other essential part (well, arent they all?) due to the B-17 shooting thru its wing and hitting me.

I haven't flown the B17 a lot, as I prefer the Lanc.  The Lanc isn't a tight turner and I usually require a lot of turning room to go from bomb run # 1 to run # 2.  Then again, level, the Lancaster is a lot faster than the B17 so its easier to cut throttles, turn, and get back on course.

But you are right, the B-17s are BattleStars.

I know the B-17 is the biggest target of the whines, but are there issues with the Lancaster?  From my Lanc, I always seem to loose the turrents fast to damage, or out of ammo quick.  Further, its amazing how if I loose my tail gunner, I simultaneously get the pilot wounded crap.  (Never mind the pilot of 75 feet away!).

How about the Ju88 and the TBM? Any issues there?  I dont think I've ever downed anyone from the TBM gun positions.

[LePaul]

Apache,

Nice post, very well thought out.

Now I understand why the "furballers" despise anything that can carry a bomb.

But...

The way the game is setup and designed is to take fields, and whoever eventually owns the most fields, wins and the game is reset.

If we push you out of one field, the fight will resume at another.

And not all the buffs are flying at 30k, I mean I know I'm not flying that high.  In most cases I am low so I can get to target faster and support my team.  If acks are down, I won't sweat being under 10k. But if they aren't, or its a big furball, I'll generally aim for 15k and know that most of the enemy fighters will not notice me until I've made my first bomb run.

I see your point, do you see mine?

[Apache]

I certainly do see your point BD. Good conversation too I might add.

Let me see if I can clarify. In WB, believe it or not, I was part of a very large, dedicated bomber squad. It was one of the oldest squads there and some of the best virtual pilots in the game. We even had a fighter wing. It was led by a guy I think most know, Thunder. It is my opinion HT did bombers better in WB than AH. Why? In WB, if you didn't fly close formation, you were dead meat. If you were by yourself, you were dead meat. If you didn't have fighter escort, you were dead meat. It was really intense seeing fighters come up to you. You knew it was going to be a fight. It was great fun! Isn't that the way it should be?

As it is now, a lone buff can pretty much roam at will. Heck, B17's are even being used as air superiority platforms. Why do you think that is?

Just the other night, one of the rooks was laughing about a 6 kill sortie in a b17. I've seen time after time a bomber take off from a field and the first thing he does is drop his bombs so he can go offensive.

I don't advocate bombers being taken from AH but I also think that catering to a lone buff pilot is silly. Could be why we don't see many bomber squads here.

[LePaul]

Apache, this is a nice change...a civilized conversation...who would have thought such a thing was possible in this BBS  

Point by Point....

a)  Never flew Warbirds or the other online/pay-to-play online games.  Before Aces High, I was big into Falcon 4 and the Novalogic games like MiG 29, F22, etc.  In Falcon, it was just hard as hell to find people to fly with/against since they do not have a central server like Aces does.  The Novalogic games were great, but the realism wasnt there.  And, as Novalogic guys would tell you, look at flight/jet sim sales.  ANything with realism/learning required doesnt sell.  Make it arcadish and easy and the sales shoot through the roof.  I became frustrated with Novalogics F22/MiG29 as guys would takeoff, fire all 6 missiles at once and then proceed to auger in and repeat the process again.  These same people would giggle in glee as they shot me down, nevermind the fact I out manuevered/jinked 5 outta 6 of those blasted things.  But, again, one of the employees told me [under his breath] that most of the online players didnt know how to land.  Just pull up, steer, and shoot.

b)  I tend to be a lone buff in Aces High too, but I also work with others, or squadmates, to approach the target in a smart way.  If I know Skurj is up ahead providing high CAP, I'll proceed in directly, since I know Skurj is a capable pilot and generally downs what he encounters.  He's also an assett to me as a forward air controller of sorts, suggesting what targets I down first and telling me whats in the area.  Likewise, my squadmates are prowling the surrounding area and if a con eludes their range, the Check Six's start chiming in.  So, while I am lone-buffing it, I'm generally part of an attack group.  BUT....I have seen what you are talking about.  Most maddening is the B26 car bombers of late when a field capture is in progress.

c)  Lack of buff squads...well, I know my squad likes a little of everything (416th RCAF) and know of my love of the Buff mission.  Frankly, buffs and goons are abused badly in here and the Main Arena.  Guys yell, cuss and demand a buff or goon do thy bidding, and I cant even begin to tell you how many times Ive brought either to such location and found that not only am I the only guy there, but 10+ cons are there waiting for me.  Its really quite something...and people wonder why guys are hesitant to drive the M3 or C47, knowing those who request them generally (but not always) will not stick around to support them.

Just real quick...I do not think Buffs are a huge problem in the Main Arena.  I'm getting knocked out of the skies by newbies and old pros like Tac in a devestately regular manner.  I think some of our fighter guys get impatient climbing to hit the buff or make bad choices, like sitting on their 6 and crying foul when they are hammered into little bits.  Clearly there are some issues that you and Tac have raised that need to be addressed in the B17.  It seems the homework load for HTC is to cure the B17s U2 tendancies and then re-evaluate those incredible M16s and M3s.

[CavemanJ]

Interesting thread, and surpsing civil so far.  Hope it stays that way.

Before I jump into this head long, I used to be a dedicated buff driver, and one of the best.  I also like to think I was one of the hottest gunners (based on how many people told me they'd have left my buff alone if they had known it was me   )

Buff guns:  Once upon a time the buff guns were too weak.  Yes, I'm talking mainly about the B-17.  Pyro and I went back and forth about the guns for a bit.  To make a long story short (too late, I know   ) IIRC they were "beefed up" after Pyro joined my -17 as a gunner and we were taken down by a kite coming in on a dead 6 attack and that kite took no damage.

The "beef up" wasn't an increase in power as most of the whines claim.  It was an increase in maximum effective range.  Not maximum range, but maximum effective range.  Maybe they toned down how quickly the bullets lose thier energy or something, I don't know.
One of the main reasons was to kind of cushion the effect of netlag.  Attacking fighter sees 500yds range, buff sees 800yds range.  IMO a decent compromise, but I think they went just a touch too far and the guns need to be dialed back a hair.
Tac's idea of the 10degree cone of fire has some merit to it I think.  It would be interesting to see it tried out.

Maneuverability:  This has to be a joke.  I took a Ta-152 up after a B-17 at 30k awhile back and the buff literally flew circles around me.  IIRC the announcement of the Ta152 brought alot of cheering about the end of the invincible 30k+ buffs, but it dinnae happen like that.
Get a guy who flies a buff like it was really flown and I'll give it 60/40 odds in favor of the fighter (50/50 with a Sierra Hotel gunner).
Get a "gamer" who stomps the rudder to dogfight from the gun positions and the fighter has 2 choices: retire or die.
IMO turns made from the gun positions should be limited to 1G at ~20-30degrees of bank instead of the 2 or 3G/60degree they have now.  If someone wants to reef thier -17 around, let'em do it from the pilot seat  

The laser accuracy of the current Norden is laughable.  If you make it to your target (and odds are you will) you're going to hit what you aim at unless you totally suck.  All you have to do is put the x-hair on the target and hit the button.  IIRC HT said at one point he had plans of changing the Norden so it actually takes some skill.  He's come through with other innovative changes, so let's give him time to get this one out (and pray it's getting close to the top of the list   )

[Nifty]

This alt monkey business needs to be fixed.  Make the gunners freeze up or something.  make 'em move slowly, and shaking the whole time if you get too high.  It's awful cold up there, after all.  Fix firing through any part of the plane.  The otto gunners (the ones that fire along with you, obviously not true AI gunners) won't fire unless they have clean LOS to the target.  If you fire through a part of your aircraft, well, you hit your aircraft!  Speaking of the otto gunners have them off a little bit at first, then converging over time.  Meaning if the fighter is silly enough to creep up on the low 6 of a B17, for example, and the human is in the tail position, the ball turret would start converging it's aim on where the human is aiming.  So the fighter starts with 2 .50 cals on him, but eventually 4 will be on him.  (the top turret wouldn't fire in this case, because it's the low 6, and the waist can't cover direct 6.)

Also, unless it's a coding or lag issue, I'd like to see more than one player be able to join a buff.  Just have it so they can jump to any position that isn't occupied.

Oh, as for TBMs, usually I die in them, but in a snapshot I killed 2 Zekes before dropping my torp.  That was the exception to the rule tho.

[eskimo2]

Buffs spend a lot more time getting to target, and they die more often when engaged by fighters.

You can complain all you want about how deadly and unrealistic the C-202 is as well, but the stats say that it sucks and if you fly it you are probably going to die.

How the heck can anyone complain about the lethality of a plane that has a K/D of less than 1?

From Tour 19:
Model   Kills   Deaths   Kills / Deaths + 1
Ar 234    31    110    0.2793
B-17G    4648    6511    0.7138
B-26B    3304    5270    0.6268
Il-2 1881    3197    0.5882
Ju 88 428    1711    0.2500
Lancaster III    2016    5093    0.3958
TBM-3    533    2937    0.1814

The only smart place to fly a bomber (where your K/D can get a bit closer to 1) is up high.
I just don't get why so many folks think that buff drivers are only here because they like getting shot down.  2 out of 10, to 7 out of 10 engagements, the buff loses.
                              
Lastly, it's the fighter that chooses to engage the bomber.
Fighters are fast, bombers are slow.
If you don't like bombers, then stay away from them, it's a big sky!

eskimo

[lazs1]

LP.. Yes... if they can't/won't be fixed they may as well remove the buffs so far as a lot of us are concerned...   As a fighter only guy I find buffs extremely frustrating.   A lone buff is capable of ruining the game for a dozen or 2 fighters...  They have WAY to much affect on the game...   A single player should not be able to ruin so many other players fun so easily...and how do they do such a thing?   Well....

It's partly the fault of the way things are set up and partly the way bombers are modeled.

the fields are set up pretty far apart with all but a few being useless at any one time so far as practical fighter sortie is concerned....  this is bad enough but.. It is coupled with the fact that the bases don't get captured 9 times out of ten... they simply become useless to either side... A lone buff hits the fuel or hangers... the field is closed but not captured...  Anyone wishing to find a fite takes of from a far back base and flys over all the useless fields for several sectors and a totally boring game experiance.

It is allso a fault of the buffers attitude and the bomber itself.   The attitude part is the attention starved... "look at me, I dropped all the fighter hangers' but the main thing is that they are able to!   The accuracy of their bombs is simply wrong.  I don't believe that a lone bomber could hit more than one strat target from alt even if he were very lucky.   He certainly should not be able to hit a ship.

What's the result?   Well.... animosity.   Nobody who enjoys a good fite will sit and cap a field  so that everyone else can have fun fiting down below... even if he spots a bomber he is faced with an unrealistic and unfun fite that will probly not stop the suicide buff from closing the field to fighters in any case.   A waste of time.

If the fields stayed open to fighters till they were closed completely or even if they were a lot easier to capture things would be better.   If the accuracy of bombs were not quite so ridiculous things would be better.   Till then..

A lot of guys just ignore buffs and hope they don't ruin things too badly or, if they do, that there will be some other place to fite.  That don't make for a lot of good feelings whenever a buff flies over.

I think you know all this to be true but are simply pretending that you don't get it.
lazs

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Nifty:
This alt monkey business needs to be fixed.  Make the gunners freeze up or something.  make 'em move slowly, and shaking the whole time if you get too high.  It's awful cold up there, after all.  Fix firing through any part of the plane.  The otto gunners (the ones that fire along with you, obviously not true AI gunners) won't fire unless they have clean LOS to the target.  If you fire through a part of your aircraft, well, you hit your aircraft!  Speaking of the otto gunners have them off a little bit at first, then converging over time.  Meaning if the fighter is silly enough to creep up on the low 6 of a B17, for example, and the human is in the tail position, the ball turret would start converging it's aim on where the human is aiming.  So the fighter starts with 2 .50 cals on him, but eventually 4 will be on him.  (the top turret wouldn't fire in this case, because it's the low 6, and the waist can't cover direct 6.)

Also, unless it's a coding or lag issue, I'd like to see more than one player be able to join a buff.  Just have it so they can jump to any position that isn't occupied.

Oh, as for TBMs, usually I die in them, but in a snapshot I killed 2 Zekes before dropping my torp.  That was the exception to the rule tho.

I agree with most of what you say, but the gunners benig affected by the temperature and stuff is ridiculous.  No matter the temperature, I can assure you that if my life is in danger, I can do amazing things.  And with that said, I'm sure many a frozen gunner was able to man their guns.

IF you want environmental factors like that, then I'll insist the fighters have the same demon, in that say the inflight oxygen masks preclude their view or ability to look left/right etc.  Ever fly at alt with helmet and mask?  I have, its not bad but can be clunky looking around with a hose dangling off your face and such.

Rather, forget the altitude/freezing idea and stick with getting the B17s performance at high altitude cured, as well as its amazing guns.

Further, I like your multiple join idea, much like we have on the CV and fields for gun positions.  My only suggestion to add to that is that if the gunner takes the hit/wound, that it not wound the pilot.  I cant tell you how many times my tail gun has been knocked out and I get the pilot wounded stuff.  (Coincidentally, the pilot wounded/passing out crap ceases the minute you hit the silk.  Shouldnt you also be passing out on the ride down?)

Great discussion, keep it up!