It would also be nice to have sequential firing if distributed flak batteries could be implemented. That way a main base could have one or two people put up some nice walls of flak. As is it takes too many players on flak guns to protect from aircraft. Also having the flak go up in a spread pattern (similar to capital ships) is much more effective against fighters without being able to concentrate it all on a bomber.
mondogeneratorWrong, name me one single engined ground attack plane that did not carry suitable armament to turn itself into a fighter right after dropping its load? Even the Il2 could turn and burn with the best of them if needed.
Correct, after they dropped their bombload. They could be fighters alright (Despite their poor low altitude and low speed positioning reletive to dedicated fighters). But in BF the vehicles preform the same regardless of payload. (Unless you code my solution, but no one would). So while it's realistic to have Jabos fly fighter-like after payload, it is NOT realistic to have them fly fighter-like with 2000lbs strapped to the underside. So either state is not fair. My suggestion is to make the weight penalty in the middle between 0% and 100%. And I would argue for 50%+++++ because: 1. BF targets are easier to hit than in real life. 2. BF view ranges are much smaller. (The jabo would be the interceptee, and thus this is an advantage) 3. BF doesn't model the effects of being 10,000' below the other fighter and thus very much screwed. Again an advantage for the jabo. Funny enough on the topic of AA I find the Flak38 to be the most effective! (20 round, axis).
Okey, but lets' not forget then all other bombers besides fighter-bombers would aswell have to be "50% better/worse" depending on their current coding. 1. Yes and no, even if you shoot straight at him from behind it's not certain the bullets actually damage, you have to lead the shots like crazy...
sometimes more than 3/4 of the screen for me
I was under the impression bombers are already weighted down. In either case I think the bombers are fine (at least the multi engined ones) in terms of their maneuverability.
Yeah I guess they can't be made too crappy either given the game limits, as it is they can even be taken out by tanks and such. Fighter bombers however needs a penalty.
re: Komets.. during fueling, of the almost pure hydrogen peroxide. didnt 50% of them explode on the airstrip, killing the refueling crew. destroying the plane and fueltruck. which is so dangerous its not funny lol these guys musta been crazy working with this stuff.
Real-BadSeedre: Komets.. during fueling, of the almost pure hydrogen peroxide. didnt 50% of them explode on the airstrip, killing the refueling crew. destroying the plane and fueltruck. which is so dangerous its not funny lol these guys musta been crazy working with this stuff.
I think you are referring to many of them exploding when landing when rough landings would jostle the remaining fuel around and if the tanks ruptured and the fuel came in contact it exploded.
oh i read they blew up alot during the fueling prosess too. or pretty much any other time, you did anything with them..lol the fuel was so explosive it was like nitro
I've changed my mind about Valirisk, they should get a me110 bomber instead, that might be more balanced Prokhorovka however could use a fw190 and some russian fighter