Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Annoying low flying bombers


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#41 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 06 October 2011 - 23:32

It's a shame they couldn't make altitude arming fuse. This way you could set the minimum altitude before the bombs would arm the fuse.

Says the man who developed the tactic of low flying HPs on the hellequins server whilst listening into the other teams t/s channel and using a ghost account to map watch (radar) to avoid enemy planes.

At one point a few months ago you could guarantee 9 out of 10 times the treetop bomber on there was you (when you weren't just spamming targets to cheat your way up the leader board - but they do say a turd always floats to the top)

Good double (triple???) standards.


I would say no standards at all.
:lol: :S!:

It seems your developing a brown spot on the tip of your nose. You might want to wipe it off before someone sees it.

By the way what is it to you? You weren't even around when all this went down.

Talk about turds! Why don't you develop a brain of your own instead of sucking up to these puppies.
  • 0

#42 iowa-1966

iowa-1966
  • Posts: 379

Posted 06 October 2011 - 23:39

What I enjoy is flying the Bristol and dropping a load on the other bomber. I can take a few hits and then drop the rack on his head

Sean McDermott
  • 0

#43 Armincles

Armincles
  • Posts: 514

Posted 07 October 2011 - 11:17

Seems that not everyone has tried Lowlevel Bombing! It is not as easy as it looks! And most importantly its more fun,isnt that what it should be all about?
Banning and locking is censoring,we are not in a Dictatorship here are we?
Any Aircraft should be able to be manoevered,and filled with fuel as the pilots seems fit,whats wrong with that?
To wait at altitude,once your bombsights are set,until your crossshair is over the target is not very difficult.(its always the same procedure)
To approach a target lowlevel with GF and enemy fighters that are very quickly on your tail as they dont have to go far,is more of a challenge to me than flying with fighter protection at altitude and push a button at the right time whilst in Autopilot!Try it and see!

Stop trying to censor! And turning a fun simulation into a boring predictable simulation with no freedom of choice. :S!:
  • 0

#44 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 07 October 2011 - 12:21

A real test of skill would be low flying while being subject to ground fire. What is described here is an exploit of a limitation.
  • 0

#45 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 07 October 2011 - 13:22

Sirocco, our server does have a lot of ground fire…but it's never enough, because it cannot effectively hit low flying planes (it does sometimes, but not nearly often enough, seems more to be a lucky shot from the AAA). And increasing it means making it impossible to fly over enemy territory above cloud altitude.

Armincles:

Fun should mean fun for everyone. And personally, I find that low level bombers destroy a lot of fun from a lot of players, since one single pilot can take an entire game hostage.

Ironically enough, it IS a dictatorship. If we, the server hosts, want to enforce a rule, we enforce it. And we can make and break rules and kick and ban at will.

But we don't, because it would not create a good environment to play. In fact, our philosophy is to have as many rules as possible on our server to give everyone the freedom that he wants - and to use the natural means at our disposal (the way the mission is set up, for example) to stop unwanted behaviour - rather than telling people what to do and what not to do.

Unfortunately, for low flying bombers this has not been possible since AAA and high airstarts fail to work.

If it was up to me, low flying bombers would be instabanned, but my fellow squadmates and server hosts are wiser than me, so it isn't like that. But that doesn't stop me from fighting them in my own way :).
  • 0

#46 Flashy

Flashy
  • Posts: 1086
  • LocationSouth Africa

Posted 07 October 2011 - 13:24

I wouldn't mind having a more effective way in game to stop or discourage low-flying enemies specifically.

Currently, the AAA just punishes the moderately high flyers more than the low flyers. And the machineguns take too long to aim in order to effectively hit a passing aircraft at treetop level: the only time they do a lot of damage is when enemies fly at a few hundred meters altitude, and stay in the same general location.

For example, it would be nice to see the machinegunners able to take aim quicker.


Potential solution: have a checkzone low down (less than 500 meters say) that spawns 10 or 15 ace flak guns. They should deal with any low level guys and higher-altitude guys wont be too affected because a.) the guns will despawn pretty quickly after killing the low-level planes and b.) higher altitude guys will not normally spawn these guns due to the checkzone only checking for low-level planes. Could work?
  • 0

Just because I can give multiple orgasms to the furniture just by sitting on it, doesn't mean that I'm not sick of this damn war: the blood, the noise, the endless poetry...


#47 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 07 October 2011 - 15:27

I wouldn't mind having a more effective way in game to stop or discourage low-flying enemies specifically.

Currently, the AAA just punishes the moderately high flyers more than the low flyers. And the machineguns take too long to aim in order to effectively hit a passing aircraft at treetop level: the only time they do a lot of damage is when enemies fly at a few hundred meters altitude, and stay in the same general location.

For example, it would be nice to see the machinegunners able to take aim quicker.


Potential solution: have a checkzone low down (less than 500 meters say) that spawns 10 or 15 ace flak guns. They should deal with any low level guys and higher-altitude guys wont be too affected because a.) the guns will despawn pretty quickly after killing the low-level planes and b.) higher altitude guys will not normally spawn these guns due to the checkzone only checking for low-level planes. Could work?

That's the ticket, to making it even more ahistorical. The notion the they didn't fly low again.

So your going to punish the ones that do and should like the single and two seater.

I still say the only way your going to stop it is to have the bomb fuse itself after it drops a certain distance. If you drop it below 300' then no kaboom!
  • 0

#48 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 07 October 2011 - 15:30

our server does have a lot of ground fire…but it's never enough, because it cannot effectively hit low flying planes (it does sometimes, but not nearly often enough, seems more to be a lucky shot from the AAA).

Precisely. It just should not be a viable tactic to fly that low in stock ROF.

IMHO the AI work *must* include proper representation of ground fire, because that's directly related to aircraft combat behaviour.
  • 0

#49 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 07 October 2011 - 15:39

Ironically enough, it IS a dictatorship. If we, the server hosts, want to enforce a rule, we enforce it. And we can make and break rules and kick and ban at will.

Absolutely. Even egalitarian Jorri recognizes that democracy as a political system does not mean mob-rule in every aspect of public and private life, especially multiplayer flight sims. :S!:
  • 0

#50 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 07 October 2011 - 16:07

And most importantly its more fun,isnt that what it should be all about?
"Fun" is very subjective and just because low level bombing is fun for you, doesn't mean that it's also fun for everybody else.

Of course we want fun. I'm pretty sure it's even more fun flying with unlimited ammo and dropping bombs all the time from your own airfield to the enemy side.

But as you said yourself, this is also a simulation.

So there has to be a compromise between fun and simulation (or "realism" if you want to use that word).

You're free to do basically everything you want on our server (excluding teamkilling). You won't get kicked or banned for bombing at low-level.

When we found a good way to make it more worthwhile for bombers to fly high instead of low, you'll notice that.

But like i said before, i think that's out of our hands and would require changes of the scoring system.

Potential solution: have a checkzone low down (less than 500 meters say) that spawns 10 or 15 ace flak guns. They should deal with any low level guys and higher-altitude guys wont be too affected because a.) the guns will despawn pretty quickly after killing the low-level planes and b.) higher altitude guys will not normally spawn these guns due to the checkzone only checking for low-level planes. Could work?
That could work, yes. In theory. You could even set it up so that only the bombers would activate those AAA guns.

If you want to only activate AAA for planes flying below ~500 meters, don't forget that that checkzone is a (half-)sphere. If you fly 250 meters from the center point of that sphere, you would need to fly below 250 meters to trigger it. That's the problem. You would basically need countless of checkzones ("complex triggers") for that, basically every 100 meters or so. Every single one of those decreases performance. As do those AAA units that spawn then. To despawn those, you would of course need more checkzones or alternatively use timers.
  • 0

#51 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 07 October 2011 - 16:54

What about setting fuses on the bombs themselves. If you don't dropped them at say 300 feet above the target they don't work. It really is the only way it will work. All this AAA machinegun is crap IMHO.
  • 0

#52 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 07 October 2011 - 17:36

Isn't there a mod around here somewhere that sets the fuses shorter? Dropping bombs from low level will also kill you with that one. Regardless, what was the historic fuse setting? Can't see artificially altering fuse settings to force an outcome. It'd be better to understand why low level ground hugging over trenches wasn't done in WW1 and try to replicate that environment.
  • 0

#53 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 07 October 2011 - 17:45

Isn't there a mod around here somewhere that sets the fuses shorter? Dropping bombs from low level will also kill you with that one. Regardless, what was the historic fuse setting? Can't see artificially altering fuse settings to force an outcome. It'd be better to understand why low level ground hugging over trenches wasn't done in WW1 and try to replicate that environment.

Flying low level bombing missions was done historically many, many, many times during the Great War. Just not by a HP/400. Which only flew one combat mission during the daytime. Then went to night missions only. The way I see if you want to encourage people to bomb from higher up then set it up so their bombs don't work unless they are above 3000m, or what ever height you set it at.
  • 0

#54 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 07 October 2011 - 17:45

It's a shame they couldn't make altitude arming fuse. This way you could set the minimum altitude before the bombs would arm the fuse.

Says the man who developed the tactic of low flying HPs on the hellequins server whilst listening into the other teams t/s channel and using a ghost account to map watch (radar) to avoid enemy planes.

At one point a few months ago you could guarantee 9 out of 10 times the treetop bomber on there was you (when you weren't just spamming targets to cheat your way up the leader board - but they do say a turd always floats to the top)

Good double (triple???) standards.

Actually I got most of those point by flying a Handley Page at 3000m. Shows you what you know.

Pretty impressive considering the HP has a ceiling of 2000m with bombs :S!:
  • 0

#55 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 07 October 2011 - 17:47

It's a shame they couldn't make altitude arming fuse. This way you could set the minimum altitude before the bombs would arm the fuse.

Says the man who developed the tactic of low flying HPs on the hellequins server whilst listening into the other teams t/s channel and using a ghost account to map watch (radar) to avoid enemy planes.

At one point a few months ago you could guarantee 9 out of 10 times the treetop bomber on there was you (when you weren't just spamming targets to cheat your way up the leader board - but they do say a turd always floats to the top)

Good double (triple???) standards.

Actually I got most of those point by flying a Handley Page at 3000m. Shows you what you know.

Pretty impressive considering the HP has a ceiling of 2000m with bombs :S!:

Sources?
  • 0

#56 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 07 October 2011 - 19:46

I took his statement to mean "in game." Which is it Mig?
  • 0

#57 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 07 October 2011 - 19:55

Flying low level bombing missions was done historically many, many, many times during the Great War. Just not by a HP/400.
This statement is still too generic for my tastes. We are talking about the kind of low level bombing missions flown on the servers and that prompted this thread. Treetop, even ground hugging over trenches. That low for the entire flight. In daylight. You are saying missions flown like that were done very often by 2-seaters?

And of course the HP/400 is just really taking it over the top.

Apart from the heavy bombers, if 2-seater bombers flew these very low mission like we see in MP, then I don't really understand the complaints against them.

You didn't address the my fuses question, so does that mean you don't have information on their settings? If these missions were pretty common, I have to assume they had fuses that worked when flying 50 feet off the ground.
  • 0

#58 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 08 October 2011 - 00:28

PErsonally, I don't mind at all seeing 2-seates carry out low level attacks. Especially the DFW.
  • 0

#59 =69.GIAP=TUSHKA

=69.GIAP=TUSHKA
  • Posts: 588

Posted 08 October 2011 - 01:18

I thought the contact fuses that exploded the bombs upon contact were meant to discourage really low-level bombing. I've blown my own wings off more than once. :)

However, has there been a recent change? The old delayed explosion seems to be back. That's good for us annoying low flying bombers (in two-seaters). I consider myself to be a ground-attack pilot. Certainly not a fighter pilot. I'm too old for that. :)
  • 0

#60 Kongo_Otto

Kongo_Otto
  • Posts: 382

Posted 08 October 2011 - 01:41

It's a shame they couldn't make altitude arming fuse. This way you could set the minimum altitude before the bombs would arm the fuse.

Says the man who developed the tactic of low flying HPs on the hellequins server whilst listening into the other teams t/s channel and using a ghost account to map watch (radar) to avoid enemy planes.

At one point a few months ago you could guarantee 9 out of 10 times the treetop bomber on there was you (when you weren't just spamming targets to cheat your way up the leader board - but they do say a turd always floats to the top)

Good double (triple???) standards.


I would say no standards at all.
:lol: :S!:

It seems your developing a brown spot on the tip of your nose. You might want to wipe it off before someone sees it.

By the way what is it to you? You weren't even around when all this went down.

Talk about turds! Why don't you develop a brain of your own instead of sucking up to these puppies.

Well let me say it this way: You Sir are just a lousy cheater, so everything what you say is just like a fart in the wind and now take yourself a nice cup of stfu.
  • 0

#61 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 08 October 2011 - 02:13

It's a shame they couldn't make altitude arming fuse. This way you could set the minimum altitude before the bombs would arm the fuse.

Says the man who developed the tactic of low flying HPs on the hellequins server whilst listening into the other teams t/s channel and using a ghost account to map watch (radar) to avoid enemy planes.

At one point a few months ago you could guarantee 9 out of 10 times the treetop bomber on there was you (when you weren't just spamming targets to cheat your way up the leader board - but they do say a turd always floats to the top)

Good double (triple???) standards.



I would say no standards at all.
:lol: :S!:

It seems your developing a brown spot on the tip of your nose. You might want to wipe it off before someone sees it.

By the way what is it to you? You weren't even around when all this went down.

Talk about turds! Why don't you develop a brain of your own instead of sucking up to these puppies.

Well let me say it this way: You Sir are just a lousy cheater, so everything what you say is just like a fart in the wind and now take yourself a nice cup of stfu.

Cheating refers to the breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation.

Can you show me where these rules are? I have yet to see them produced on these forums. Or anywhere else for that matter. Go stick you nose back in TC bum.
  • 0

#62 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6356
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 08 October 2011 - 02:58

There was a tough battle with an HP 400 at tree-top level on the HQ server tonight. I LOL'd when I saw that Jason was flying it…
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#63 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 08 October 2011 - 12:34

Just to point this out, not everyone hates them, I think of them as "meals on wheels" or "Essen auf Rädern". They come to you and you don't have to find them with all the flares and tracers around them, and they are a nice challenge to take down.
  • 0

#64 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 08 October 2011 - 12:42

There was a tough battle with an HP 400 at tree-top level on the HQ server tonight. I LOL'd when I saw that Jason was flying it…

I'm sorry I missed that particular event :D :D :D

Anyway, I'm not speaking for my squad at all, it's just my personal opinion.

And Wolf is thinking in the right direction with the fuses. But like Tushka says, if the bombs explode on impact, that makes it even more dangerous for the low flying bombers. Unfortunately, at the moment only the small cooper bombs (and their German equivalent in the DFW?) do this.

If the bigger bombs exploded on impact as well, it would force the bombers to fly higher - not much, but just enough for the AAA to get them :).

How were these fuses actually timed on the real bombs?
  • 0

#65 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 08 October 2011 - 13:38

Maybe we should add this feature, because clearly they had some bombs that worked just like that.

Attached File  Bomb Fusing.png   2.4MB   75 downloads

Now according to this article they had bombs that didn't arm till they were at least dropped from 656' abovr the target. Seems to me that would stop the low level bombing.

When I read about the AWM they never seem to drop bombs below 200 feet. Was this because they had to arm the primer?
  • 0

#66 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 08 October 2011 - 13:55

What would that change so.

Like i said before, the majority of those low level bomber pilots doesn't care if they get killed after dropping the bombs. Wether or not they get shot down by enemies or they blow up by their bombs (which just killed their target aswell) doesn't matter. Also it would probably increase bombing altitude by 100 meters or so. Wouldn't make that much of a difference anyhow.

People should be awarded for flying high, not punished for flying low.
  • 0

#67 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 08 October 2011 - 14:06

What would that change so.

Like i said before, the majority of those low level bomber pilots doesn't care if they get killed after dropping the bombs. Wether or not they get shot down by enemies or they blow up by their bombs (which just killed their target aswell) doesn't matter. Also it would probably increase bombing altitude by 100 meters or so. Wouldn't make that much of a difference anyhow.

People should be awarded for flying high, not punished for flying low.

The only reason they fly low is to insure hitting the target. What if they had to drop them a lot futher away. There would be more chances for missing the target. 646' is pretty high enough to miss judge a bomb drop. IMHO.
  • 0

#68 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 08 October 2011 - 14:10

And wouldn't the AAA have more chance of hitting them?

Anyhow, the bomb fuses shouldn't be anything else than what they were historically, IMHO. Not sure what that was for each bomb, though.
  • 0

#69 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 08 October 2011 - 14:26

And wouldn't the AAA have more chance of hitting them?

Anyhow, the bomb fuses shouldn't be anything else than what they were historically, IMHO. Not sure what that was for each bomb, though.

My guess is this is because no one took the time to research them properly. :S!:
  • 0

#70 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 08 October 2011 - 14:59

People should be awarded for flying high, not punished for flying low.
They should have both. There were real reasons why large bombers didn't fly treetop to their targets. There were real reasons why they flew high. Low was dangerous, high was safer. Of course, there were reasons why they flew at night vs. daylight as well. Safer vs. danger. The mission should try to recreate the environmental reasons for duplicating the historic tactics.

Here's an idea on the scoring: consider the score as also a strategic assessment. That is, you get points for returning the crew & aircraft. Command would not have tolerated sending bombers out only to see them never return. Far too expensive for that. So, points should reflect that command goal. You only get points if the plane returns to its base. Sure, as an individual crew you might have blown up that factory, but from a value to the cause, it is a nit unless you can return so that other factories can be bombed in the future.

So, there's a rationalization for scoring only if you return to base.
  • 0

#71 Armincles

Armincles
  • Posts: 514

Posted 09 October 2011 - 09:25

I always fly back to base unless I get shot down!
Maybe the answer is no bombers,as most allie planes have the ability to load bombs,it would change the game totally! But you would have a guarantee of no low bombing!
Cant stop one and not the others! :S!:
  • 0

#72 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 09 October 2011 - 13:24

Cant stop one and not the others! :S!:

Indeed, that's the problem in a nutshell. But I'll keep trying :).
  • 0

#73 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 09 October 2011 - 14:04

People should be awarded for flying high, not punished for flying low.
They should have both. There were real reasons why large bombers didn't fly treetop to their targets. There were real reasons why they flew high. Low was dangerous, high was safer. Of course, there were reasons why they flew at night vs. daylight as well. Safer vs. danger. The mission should try to recreate the environmental reasons for duplicating the historic tactics.

It's nigh impossible to do that, unless we all have enough ram to simulate the thousands of soldiers on the ground shooting their rifles into the sky. The work around is to have super-accurate flak guns firing at low level (which is unrealistic), but that seems to be the only way to keep bombers off the deck.

The idea of rewarding instead of punishing to encourage flying at altitude is nice, but I'm yet to see a reward that works on most people.
  • 0

#74 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 09 October 2011 - 14:26

The work around is to have super-accurate flak guns firing at low level (which is unrealistic), but that seems to be the only way to keep bombers off the deck.

Negative: the flak can't hit the low bombers because they're too low, and it will just shoot down the nice high ones :).
  • 0

#75 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 09 October 2011 - 15:17

You don't need to simulate thousands, just the few small arms rounds that would either come close or hit. That would radically change ROF and keep us above the treetops. But for that to be workable the aircraft AI needs fixing alongside it.
  • 0

#76 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 09 October 2011 - 16:26

The work around is to have super-accurate flak guns firing at low level (which is unrealistic), but that seems to be the only way to keep bombers off the deck.

Negative: the flak can't hit the low bombers because they're too low, and it will just shoot down the nice high ones :).

Oh really? Damn. :(
  • 0

#77 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 09 October 2011 - 17:27

It's nigh impossible to do that, unless we all have enough ram to simulate the thousands of soldiers on the ground shooting their rifles into the sky. The work around is to have super-accurate flak guns firing at low level (which is unrealistic), but that seems to be the only way to keep bombers off the deck.

The idea of rewarding instead of punishing to encourage flying at altitude is nice, but I'm yet to see a reward that works on most people.

(Gavagai throws hands in air in despair at there being nothing we can do improve this situation.)

:x
  • 0

#78 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 09 October 2011 - 19:32

We need to using these bombs.Attached File  Lego Bomb.jpg   13.19KB   54 downloads

Start using bombs that mdeled the way they really were.
  • 0

#79 arjisme

arjisme
  • Posts: 2377

Posted 09 October 2011 - 20:51

You still haven't shown evidence of how fuses were set. I know in your other thread you are trying to get that figured out. But, looks like the early news is that bombs were often dropped from 100 feet.
  • 0

#80 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 09 October 2011 - 20:54

Yeap, the jury is still out on it.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users