PDA

View Full Version : Curious Question Regarding Heavy Bombers



ReligiousZealot
01-17-2006, 10:08 AM
Before I start, I want to clarify this is not a whine thread for the inclusion of "flyable" heavy bombers, it's more of a what if scenario.

I want to throw this out on the table as a question to see what you guys think. I am wondering, do you think that if we were to have flyable heavy bombers the fighting would take place at higher altitudes? I am wondering this because a large portion of our plane set rarely gets used to their full potential because the fighting takes place at quite lower altitudes (>2000m).

To cite an example or two, I bring to light the P-51D and FW190D series. Both aircraft were designed for high altitude fighting, but rarely do we see engagements at the 6000m mark. I am wondering aboutthe possibilities of the inclusion of, say, the B-17. Would its inclusion (and in a perfect world, a map that could support it, although it would be stretching the possible limits of the sim) possibly drag the fighting up to the 20,000ft mark?

Although it is highly unlikely that we will ever see flyable heavies much due to the lack of having large enough maps to support them and the large amount of work it would take...of course, we'd need a decent English channel map, and who doesn't want that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

ReligiousZealot
01-17-2006, 10:08 AM
Before I start, I want to clarify this is not a whine thread for the inclusion of "flyable" heavy bombers, it's more of a what if scenario.

I want to throw this out on the table as a question to see what you guys think. I am wondering, do you think that if we were to have flyable heavy bombers the fighting would take place at higher altitudes? I am wondering this because a large portion of our plane set rarely gets used to their full potential because the fighting takes place at quite lower altitudes (>2000m).

To cite an example or two, I bring to light the P-51D and FW190D series. Both aircraft were designed for high altitude fighting, but rarely do we see engagements at the 6000m mark. I am wondering aboutthe possibilities of the inclusion of, say, the B-17. Would its inclusion (and in a perfect world, a map that could support it, although it would be stretching the possible limits of the sim) possibly drag the fighting up to the 20,000ft mark?

Although it is highly unlikely that we will ever see flyable heavies much due to the lack of having large enough maps to support them and the large amount of work it would take...of course, we'd need a decent English channel map, and who doesn't want that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

Chuck_Older
01-17-2006, 10:37 AM
No, I just think the B-17 would be mis-used at low and mid altitudes (and perhaps even successfully)

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2006, 11:05 AM
I dunno Chuck, if the P-51 and -47 stuff really have high alt advantage, then I'm sure B-17s would have a reason to fly that high, as long as they can hit something from up there like enemy base ... maybe keep it under constant bombardment hehe, only one plane at a time bombing, turn around, and another plane drops more bombs.

Tater-SW-
01-17-2006, 11:24 AM
The hi-alt game is pretty crappy, so that's one strike. I think that you'd really need to see scernario (coop) type play for high alt. Also, possible game objectives from a bombing standpoint are pretty weak. Pinpoint bombing is too easy from any alt, and there's not a "dump bombs near city and RTB" as a goal, lol.

As for heavies operating at low alt, bith B-17s and B-24s were used for skip bombing in the SWPA.

tater

ReligiousZealot
01-17-2006, 03:12 PM
I'd have to say I agree on the part of the Hi-alt modeling lacking, but at the same time it'd be nice to actually see a P-51D or FW190D online in its element.

As for what Chuck said, yep, you're always going to have people misusing the planes (like the idiots who try to turn fight against a Zero).

As for what Lexx said, I was thinking that same thing that maybe the heavies would have a reason to fly up that high...and I'd jump in my Ki-84 to attempt to clamber up there and take 'em down, haha.

DmdSeeker
01-17-2006, 03:34 PM
Every on line flight sim I've flown in the last ten years where heavies are flown turns into a pork fest.

I've no whish to ruin any one else's fun; but the absense of heavies make on line flying as we know it much more enjoyable.

They won't be used historicaly; because there are no historical targets (how many points would you get for offloading over Berlin?).

Instead they'll be used as low level singeltons performing base denial.

And then the whines will start....

Zeus-cat
01-17-2006, 04:05 PM
I think most people would fly the heavies too low. We are used to reasonably quick combat in this game and that won't happen if people have to climb to altitude.

As already stated, there aren't suitable targets in the game for heavies anyway. You can't target a building or area, so high altitude bombing is problematic.

ElAurens
01-17-2006, 04:18 PM
To do the "heavies" justice we would need maps at least the size of the Finland map. It takes a long time to get a fully loaded heavy up to 20,000ft.

TAW_Oilburner
01-17-2006, 05:25 PM
I would trade all the other planes on other's wishlist for one of the heavies (flyable): Lancaster,B-17, or B-24. This, in combination with map makers being able to set a spawn altitude (using airspawn bug) would add an entire new dimension to the game. Also, if you think bomber pilots won't cooperate and use their bombers historically, your flying on the wrong server.

djetz
01-18-2006, 06:32 AM
The reason the heavies flew so high was to avoid flak and fighters, which is why the Germans designed hi-alt fighters, which is why the Allies started building hi-alt versions of their fighters.

Oddly enough the original specification for the Mustang was as a ground attack plane. The US tried it out as the A36 but it was a piece of cr4p in that role.

The Tank-152 is the ultimate hi-alt fighter, designed purely for that role. Rubbish at low alt, though. Some of the Spitfire models were designed as high alt specialists.

Sturm_Williger
01-18-2006, 06:55 AM
The D9 may have been designed as a high-alt fighter, but in-game it's not much good at 8000m or above. For that you need the Ta152.

Which is a pity, 'cos the D9 is a dream.

Maraz_5SA
01-18-2006, 09:02 AM
In some good DF server where the planeset includes heavies (e.g. Greatergreen, Zeke vs Wildcat, Spit vs 109) you often see flights of bombers around 3000 - 35000 m.

I often venture up to 4000 or even 5000 m, especially in Zeke vs Wildcat where mission ranges are a bit larger, allowing time to climb.

When I do that I am usually unseen, until flak starts shooting at me, but, even then, fighters need long time to climb at my height, so I at least can hit the objective undisturbed.

Large flight of bombers at 6000 m or more are less probable due to the long time needed to climb, mission might even end before you are on the target! Also most maps are too small so you need circling around to gain altitude.

Even in coops when there are flyable bombers set to high height, they usually have airstart because not everybody could bear a two hours mission.

The problem of building giving no points is not such a big problem, most mission designers put stationary objects (cars, train cars) among buildings, fuel dumps and factories to reward players hitting them.

I don't think that the addition of more bombers (though welcome) could change that. Maybe the design of some more dogfight maps purposely built for high level bombing could help a bit.

Maraz

csThor
01-18-2006, 09:29 AM
No. The number of dedicated and serious bomber players is too small to make much of an impact compared to the number of "Jonny Joysticks" who'd just take a B-17 to 1000m, use the AI gunners to play an ackstar and throw the full bombload just across the next enemy runway because that "roxx".

Don't believe me? I've seen it happen when I was still playing Warbirds all the time. The number of serious high-alt raids with orgganizd bomber and escort flights was extremely low. Most players were of the "Take-Off - Furball - Die - Repeat" crowd anyway and the serious bomber fans only found their peace in organized scenarios. My 0,02 " ...

bogusheadbox
01-18-2006, 10:47 AM
I for one would relish flying heavies if they were available, and provided larger maps were also available.

On a large map, a heavy with a "r0x0r" pilot flying at 1000 meters will be spotted and attacked by any and everything well before he would make an enemy airbase. I doubt he would get cover as well as all escorts would know he will be visible from the moon and the odds are stacked heavily against him.

With such a plane on a large map, the only safe distance would be at high altitude where engine damage or loss may still result in the player entering the target area (if his flight skill or engine management is good enough). At low altitude this would not be possible.

A heavy is such a huge target that boom and zoomers would be able stab at it with good chances of hits. Hell even let a salvo of rockets off to blow it apart ! I don't think a heavy will be an uber plane. more of a weak plane that is easy to hit, cannot dodge and flies at a constant speed.

I remember playing the original IL2 and flying a heavy (from external view) on some MP maps. It was nearly impossible to get to target at mid to low altitude (all that was available on some maps) as good pilots could take their time and snipe shoot from a long distance and take out the engines or gunners without problem. Then move in for the kill. Just because of the huge size and lack of mobility.

Also, flying heavies on a large map will get rid of the super jocks that sit at base with 25% fuel and only take off when an enemy scoots over the airbase with their super light aircraft. It will also make people utilize engine management a lot more. It will also make fighters utilize drop tanks and make fuel consumption a thing to always keep your eyes on.

To me a heavy is balanced (whilst in a large map) by its flaws of; size, slow climb, inability to dodge and time it takes to target, by the fact it can deal such a large amount of damage if it actually does make it too target.

I can not see a valid argument why a heavy should not be introduced. Provided a good server or host only enables them on the propper sized maps.

Hammer jocks won't fly them as they are too easily downed and slow. As for dedicated bombers. Well i see more and more everyday that are perfecting the art of bombing. As for pin point bombing at high altitude. Well yeah, what is hard about bombing in zero wind conditions, perfect visibility at a target that is always at a constant distance from the plane. You can change that you know. Try changing the elevation of a target where you will need a spotter plane to determine the height of target so the bombers can reach their respective attack heights and bomb angles.

I would gladly fly a heavy and take the time it needs to get it to altitude. To me, it would add a monstrous amount of immersion and provide a totally new aspect to online play provided, once again, that servers / hosts decide to make things appropriate and add weather and elevation changes.

zoinks_
01-18-2006, 11:10 AM
cross your fingers that your wish may be granted in bob. got have altitude fighting coming soon, right?

Tater-SW-
01-18-2006, 11:57 AM
The argument about them being "misused" is absurd. If that were the case, don't enable those types on your server. Some server somewhere will ccater to people who want to fly them within normal uses of the type, fly there.

tater

Hoatee
01-18-2006, 02:23 PM
On Hyperlobby some time ago, some ******* tried to down me on my six in a B25 at low altitude. Saw him, banked, he tried to follow but stalled, haha. Funniest sight I ever saw. So yeah, it happen(d)s unfortunately.

ElAurens
01-18-2006, 04:05 PM
What is happening currently though is that on servers where the B17 and B24 are set up as flyable AI from externals the only safe place to fly is down low. Ditto the B25.

In a no icons environment it is far easier to blend into the background of trees and grass. If you fly high you will be seen. An odd artifact of visibility issues in our sim.

Hoatee
01-18-2006, 04:13 PM
Perhaps I should have just added that my impression was that this guy was trying to bounce me - and flew the Mitchell as a fighter.

Monguse
01-18-2006, 07:55 PM
Gentlemen,

First of all. Some of the posts hear are right on when they say "the AI heavies when flown by humans are used incorrectly". That said, it all depends what server you frequent and what intent the designer had when designing the mission, such as as are the bases to close negating the possibility of heavies from getting altitude.

Historically there were many high altitude bomber formations as well as high altitude dog fights, for instance, Big Week or Operation Argument. In this operation both the 8th AF and the 15AF combined went to bomb German targets (the 8th AF from England and 15th AF from Italian bases).

So, again it all depends on the map and the scenario. Unfortunately, we don't have many maps that might fit exactly, but with careful planning any map can be convincingly created.

That said, a couple of us fly heavies at their "proper" altitude (or historically accurate mission height, like Ploesti) here are some samples:

http://www.warwingsart.com/historia/B17G-381stBG-532ndBS_30.jpg
B17-G 381stBG 532ndBS - altitude 15,000 ft

http://www.warwingsart.com/historia/Historia-02-09-06-22.jpg
B24J 458thBG 753rdBS - getting altitude

http://www.warwingsart.com/historia/Historia-02-09-06-32.jpg
B24J 458thBG 753rdBS - bombing from 24,000 ft (just below contrails)

On all of the screen shots above all targets were hit, so it is possible to make a formation of heavies, it just takes patience.

BTW, I fly the Spitfire MkIXe HF at altitudes of 32,000 ft against ME, FW and TA's. Lately the TA rocks up there but the little Spit is very good up there.

xTHRUDx
01-18-2006, 07:59 PM
those were direct hits on target, BTW from those lofty heights

TheGozr
01-18-2006, 08:03 PM
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/B17.jpg

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/B24_3.jpg

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/B24_4.jpg

xTHRUDx
01-18-2006, 08:09 PM
forgot to mention, this is how we do it

learn here:
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/viewtopic.php?t=371
the accurate stuff towards the bottom.

you big gun german pilots are welcome to drop by and try and shoot us down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

slo123
01-18-2006, 09:35 PM
(like the idiots who try to turn fight against a Zero).

i shot down bought 5 of them idiots in a zero yesterday

Monguse
01-19-2006, 03:57 AM
-

Hoatee
01-19-2006, 02:25 PM
I don't think Slo specifically mentioned that it happened on Historia. Nice to know that you guys have a serious historical approach to the 'game'.