high altitude air battle -1 reply

Neighbor Kid

Pro Sherman Tanker

50 XP

31st July 2004

1,334 Posts

#21 16 years ago

This is a great idea but instead of the b-17f make it he b-17g with cheek mg's and chin turret for more protction form fighters. It would be cool if every kept in a formation and shot off germamn fighter with fuighter support. You know the 4 group of bomber but 4 times how many bomnber groups there are. after all bombers did nto brak that much or at all.

Mazz

BFE-WAW

50 XP

15th November 2003

1,245 Posts

#22 16 years ago

Maybe throw in some P-51s McGibs or something to fill that extra space.

Tas

50 XP

3rd September 2004

7,275 Posts

#23 16 years ago

This sounds like a better idea the more i think/read about it:beer:

Bagginses

Filthy Hobbit

50 XP

12th May 2004

74 Posts

#24 16 years ago

Very interesting and creative idea. You could even code in cloud objects that are coded to move in a direction opposite to the bombers to help instill a sense of motion.

The only problem I'm foreseeing, is that if you have stationary, or slow moving bombers, how are you going to relate their speeds to that of the fighters. If, for example, the bombers are stationary and you use smoke and mirrors to make them appear as if they're moving, then when a fighter flies at the bomber from the rear or front, the relative speed will be the same. Obviously if the bomber was moving at it's typical speed, the relative speed of approaching from behind would be much slower than approaching a stationary object, and approaching from the front would be much greater than that of a stationary object. Those of you who've taken basic Physics courses know what I'm talking about.

For those who haven't (some simple examples): I drive a car going 30 mph straight at a stationary car (0 mph), our relative velocity is 30 mph (30 + 0). I approach a car from behind going 60 mph, I am traveling 30 mph, our relative velocity is 30 mph (60 - 30). I approach a car traveling 60 mph head-on, while I travel 30 mph, our relative speed is 90 mph (60 + 30). Don't tell your parents you've never learned anything from a video game ;).

-Bagginses

Who_Flung_Poo?

No I don't know who did.

50 XP

4th November 2003

5,360 Posts

#25 16 years ago

For this map maybe make the B-17's 2 objects so you could put full MG positions on it.

Tas

50 XP

3rd September 2004

7,275 Posts

#26 16 years ago

As proposed before, the b17's with waiste(sp?) and chin mg's should be put in, it would offer the most positions, and since a new model will have to made from scratch anyways..

FactionRecon

11PzG Grunt

50 XP

4th August 2003

3,889 Posts

#27 16 years ago

This sounds like an excellent idea! I'd love to see this implemented in-game althougfh surely there would be some challenges here and there to make it lay right. But overall the idea is good.

Lordbutter

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

8th June 2004

350 Posts

#28 16 years ago

The only problem i see with it would be the allied players spawning in..There would have to be some way to block out a spawn once its picked...example...your allied, you spawn on b17 a....but so does everyone else...now we get the entire allied team spawning on the same b17..that could be a mess.....

Also same with adding fighters for allied.....this would also be a nightmare...at the start at least 10 guys would all spawn for the same fighter with only 1 getting it. The rest plummet to their death.

Myrddraal

Search function? Where?

50 XP

28th April 2004

669 Posts

#29 16 years ago

I really like this idea. I do think the B17's should move around the map though, not piloted but suspended similar to the betty but moving at full speed. The weak point in the B17's defensive guns was 12 O'clock High and if they were stationary there would be no disadvantage to attacking them here where as if they are moving this attack angle gives less time to fire. Also if the interceptors have to look for the bombers then it will give the escort fighters a little extra time to take them out.

mondogenerator

Wolfgaming.net *****istrator

50 XP

24th September 2003

568 Posts

#30 16 years ago

To be honest, play a flight sim, high alt combat in the BF engine seems a bit silly IMHO.

The 13th RaptorI do forsee a big problem all of a sudden.... smacktards crashing their planes into the bombers because they want to win no matter what, talk about realism.

I can't remember his name but there was a Luftwaffe ace who's favorite tactic was to ram bombers then bail out....I kid you not. I'll find his name.

There was also a RAF pilot in the Battle of Britian, I can't remember his name but its easy to find, who took his burning hurricane with himself suffereing terrible burns and rammed it into a LW bomber then bailed. He got a Victoria Cross for that.

There were FW190 A8 conversions with armoured and strengthened leading edges (they were by no means common) for ramming the rudders of B17's.

Now please don't tell me fighters ramming planes is not realistic.