B17s from Hell

[Philbd]

Hi,

The biggest problem I have is the B17 seems to be a credible and highly effective naval bomber. And it just ain't so. I don't believe there is any historical statistical evidence to support its ability to routinely bomb naval forces and score hits consistently. I have seen 3 B17s attack a task force with over 40 zeros and obtain hits-the attack is always pressed home and they consistently score hits. There was a reason skip bombing was developed in WWII-level bombers had great difficulty in attacking naval vessels. They were not designed for this mission and had little success against them but that is not seen in the new version.

Phil D

[afenelon]

-Could you post some combat resolutions? Are those ships
-in ports or high seas? What were the altitude of those
-B-17´s?

[Mr.Frag]

The problem is not with the B-17 itself, it is with player tactics of using them on naval attack missions.

Due to the high level of durability modelled, the plane simply can not be shot down once there are a few other them together and will drive right through silly numbers of CAP.

Just imagine what would happen if you gave the Betty the same ability to drive off fighters, USA looses war.

[Philbd]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
The problem is not with the B-17 itself, it is with player tactics of using them on naval attack missions.

Due to the high level of durability modelled, the plane simply can not be shot down once there are a few other them together and will drive right through silly numbers of CAP.

Just imagine what would happen if you gave the Betty the same ability to drive off fighters, USA looses war.

I am not opposed to the durability of the plane just its ability to hit naval vessels routinely. As to blaming it on player tactics, isn't that one of the criteria of a 'good' simulation'-it promotes use of 'proper' tactics and penalises 'poor' tactics.

[Admiral_Arctic]

In l the four games I have played as the Allies, I have only used the B17 on port, ground, and airbase attacks. I don't ask my opponents for any concessions. I fly at whatever attitude is suitable, but normally above 10K.

[Mr.Frag]

Originally posted by Philbd
I am not opposed to the durability of the plane just its ability to hit naval vessels routinely. As to blaming it on player tactics, isn't that one of the criteria of a 'good' simulation'-it promotes use of 'proper' tactics and penalises 'poor' tactics.

It's never that simple, just as you can go around with 90% CAP on your CV's and sucker the other guy into loosing 100% of his aircraft, there are ways to abuse the system. Historically, we know that the B-17's were never used for the purposes of massed naval attacks. Some folks continue to do it anyways. Such is life.

Yes, Matrix could adjust the code to have the B-17's crash a lot more often if flying below 6000 feet due to the poor climb rates, but should they have to when we all know they were not used like this? They attempted to deter this play style with higher flak damage, and higher operational losses and massive moral penalties, but it still comes down to some folks taking the abuse for the reward is still very good... The only real fix its to completely remove the altitude option from the game, and hardcode planes to fly at proper altitudes based on historical use.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
The only real fix its to completely remove the altitude option from the game, and hardcode planes to fly at proper altitudes based on historical use.

Removing options from players is never the correct way to fix something that some perceive as a problem.

Yamamoto