Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say?

[Mozo]

I disagree. [;)]

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think?

Mozo

[EUBanana]

...I thought a level bomber could only hit a ship with one bomb maximum, and that more bombload just meant more likelihood of a hit?

Looks seriously broken to me anyway.

[pad152]

B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.

One would have hoped this was fixed. [8|]

[gunnergoz]

I can see this level of damage happening if the Forts flew through the hangar bay as they were dropping the ordnance...at 100 ft, they could just about do it.

[EUBanana]

I thought skip bombing in AE (as presumably that is what this is) was essentially limited to attack bombers, and that was the whole reason to have the attack bomber as a new aircraft classification?

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I thought skip bombing in AE (as presumably that is what this is) was essentially limited to attack bombers, and that was the whole reason to have the attack bomber as a new aircraft classification?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... lfboutique

Product Description
Murphy was one of a very small number of volunteer pilots who, with their flight crews, started bombing at low altitudes in B-17 flying fortresses in the Southwest Pacific. The aircraft were flown at a 200-foot altitude and at 250 miles per hour at night. One-thousand pound bombs, equipped with four-to-five second fuses, were dropped from the B-17s.

Skip bombing was invented by using B-17s.

http://books.google.com.mt/books?id=ajQ ... ng&f=false

See Chapter 3, "Ken's men".

And:

http://www.kensmen.com/skipbombing.html

http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I thought skip bombing in AE (as presumably that is what this is) was essentially limited to attack bombers, and that was the whole reason to have the attack bomber as a new aircraft classification?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... lfboutique

Product Description
Murphy was one of a very small number of volunteer pilots who, with their flight crews, started bombing at low altitudes in B-17 flying fortresses in the Southwest Pacific. The aircraft were flown at a 200-foot altitude and at 250 miles per hour at night. One-thousand pound bombs, equipped with four-to-five second fuses, were dropped from the B-17s.

Skip bombing was invented by using B-17s.

http://books.google.com.mt/books?id=ajQ ... ng&f=false

See Chapter 3, "Ken's men".

And:

http://www.kensmen.com/skipbombing.html

http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

Sure, I know about skip bombing.

I'm talking about game design. I thought that in AE skip bombing was more or less limited to specially trained bomber squadrons who would be referred to as 'attack bombers'.

But that was a very long time ago, and I didn't really follow AE development all that much - just the bit I /really/ wanted, ie surface forces reacting.

[Sardaukar]

Besides, it might be bit too early for skip bombing...and AFAIK, B-17s did it during the night usually.

[Mozo]

Well I'll keep doing it and let you know if I get similar results.  I'd be interested in hearing from Matrix whether this is intended or something that needs to be addressed in some future patch.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mozo

I disagree. [;)]

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think? I think it sounds about right. Apparently you found some pilots angry enough and brave enough to come in on the deck. In testing I found it almost useless to try to get heavies to come in below 9,000..., units simply wouldn't fly the mission. But the real reason why Allied heavies generally flew at 17-24,000 feet in the Pacific is that they were used in small numbers and generally for reccon. The altitude protected them from any Japanese fighters they might encounter. This was obviously a "backs-to-the-wall" situation, so tried the unexpected and slipped in under the CAP.

Mozo

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mozo

I disagree. [;)]

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think? I think it sounds about right. Apparently you found some pilots angry enough and brave enough to come in on the deck. In testing I found it almost useless to try to get heavies to come in below 9,000..., units simply wouldn't fly the mission. But the real reason why Allied heavies generally flew at 17-24,000 feet in the Pacific is that they were used in small numbers and generally for reccon. The altitude protected them from any Japanese fighters they might encounter. This was obviously a "backs-to-the-wall" situation, so they tried the unexpected and slipped in under the CAP.

Mozo

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: pad152
B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.
One would have hoped this was fixed. [8|]

Yes, I thought this sort of gamey crap was going to be "handled" better in AE.

[Barb]

FOW on or off?

[khyberbill]

This is something that can easily be handled by House Rules.

[Scott_USN]

Even *gasp* personal rules against the AI.
 
Just because there is an easy way doesn't mean we have to exploit it. AI is not that smart I have no reason to cheat it.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

ORIGINAL: pad152
B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.
One would have hoped this was fixed. [8|]

Yes, I thought this sort of gamey crap was going to be "handled" better in AE.

Well, DP I guess you can chock this one up as a personal victory...congratulations. How does it feel?

What are you going to do now that you've defeated the entire AE team and proven that nothing has changed, since WitP?

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Well, DP I guess you can chock this one up as a personal victory...congratulations. How does it feel?

What are you going to do now that you've defeated the entire AE team and proven that nothing has changed, since WitP?

I'm going to Disney World......

[AttuWatcher]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Well, DP I guess you can chock this one up as a personal victory...congratulations. How does it feel?

What are you going to do now that you've defeated the entire AE team and proven that nothing has changed, since WitP?

I'm going to Disney World......

too late...my B-17s just bombed it to smithereens at 100ft.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Mozo

I disagree. [;)]

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think?

Mozo

I think that a CV should be able to out manuever a few big 4E bombers so easily. One steep turn should be enough.

[seydlitz_slith]

Yeah, but what they didn't tell you was the ball gunner was killed when the B-17 flew over the deck at 100 feet and the executive officer lopped the ball turret off with his samurai sword.