I assume most (if not all) of you guys has seen pictures where bombers took a hell of a lot of damage and they still made it back safely. I have also noticed that bombers aren't very tough at all, like they should be. I know these aren't flying tanks, but they weren't that easy to shoot down. Please give me your opinions.
I agreee they should not be the huge targets they are now.
Meh, it goes both ways. This engine does not handle area-specific damage that well, so a simplified system of hitpoints leads to some problems. With a hitpoint system, its impossible to replicate the instances where a bomber was damaged or destroyed by just a couple hits in the right place (for example, a single 30mm cannon shell detonating in the cockpit could bring down a B-17, gunners could be killed, control surfaces damaged, engines shot out, landing gear destroyed, etc.) None of these things are possible with a hit point system. However, Major Hartmann's recent thread detailing failure of specific engines sounds as though we may be taking a big step in the right direction. I do hate how easy it is for cannon-armed fighters to bring down big bombers though, because quite simply it was much harder to do so in real life. But then again, most things were. I'd like to see bombers survive longer over the battlefield, but I'm not sure giving them enormous HP is the right way to go about it.
i think this will be taken care of together with the implementation of the code presented earlier this month by hartmann. even if it doesn't work visually in MP, i'd like it implemented.
:agreed yes tougher bombers plz, or less accurate aaa. its impossible to make a pass over aaa (except the 88)and not be killed nearly instantly. the 88 is the only one thats setup right imo. it was not that easy to shoot down planes irl
anyone that says they cant shoot down planes, are missing the planes... if they hit the plane, they would bring it down emmediately, as it is now.
no dont dumb down the aa, the aa is fine as it is
thats why u fly higher and plan your attack better its fine
When you fly too high you hardly hit anything, and you can't see your target.
Yes bombers should have more HP, but people should stop using b17's and lancasters like dive bombers and more like artillery.
Real-BadSeed:agreed yes tougher bombers plz, or less accurate aaa. its impossible to make a pass over aaa (except the 88)and not be killed nearly instantly. the 88 is the only one thats setup right imo. it was not that easy to shoot down planes irl anyone that says they cant shoot down planes, are missing the planes... if they hit the plane, they would bring it down emmediately, as it is now.
Maybe you shouldnt be flying 3 meters above the ground. Maybe then you wont be so easily taken down.Thats the problem with pilots. They fly way to low and way too reckless and then start complaining that they got killed. And besides the things you can do with planes in FH where simply impossible with planes in real life. I doubt a B-17 could dive bomb in real life. And i doubt a p-47 would be stupid enough to fly 5 meter over the ground to drop a 500kg bomb on a tank. And pilots generally didnt attack a bomber in the tail because it was pretty suicidal to do so. Besides less accurate AA would mean that planes would have an easier time turning a map into one big rapefest, just take a look at most desert maps. Its already bad enough that we can't tow AA. Besides how realistic is it that dont have any effect on the performance of a plane? I doubt a plane could do the things people do in FH without crashing into the ground due to stalling of the plane. And only the Bofors has a chance to take a plane down in one shot. But generally it takes 2-3 shots. And besides it was designed to be a 1S1K AAA in real life.