Originally Posted by Immigrant
Lib is a bomber it's meant to fly high so guy in the upper turret would die of boredom while waiting for someone to occasionally engage it from above.
|
If the Lib was made to be a high-alt bomber, why give it a 35mm anti-armor gun on the nose, and why make the tail gunner able to shoot at ground targets? And why make it so at max altitude ground targets are outside of the draw distance for the bombardier?
Also, I stated in the original idea post that the Bombardier would be the one who would run the top gun. He couldn't do both at once, he'd have to switch between the two. When fly high-alt bombing runs, he'd just be bombing.
Originally Posted by Immigrant
Also it does need a weak spot as well as anything else and top is perfect. Smaller aircraft should protect a Lib when engaged from above.
|
There's a difference between "weak spot" and "incapable of escape, evasion, and survival". It's like saying 1 single flak air-burst should 1-shot any fighter, and then saying "well, you need someone to kill all the AA before a fighter can fly in that area." It's totally unrealistic and unfair.
Originally Posted by Knotz
I think the lib should be left as it is. Immigrant is right, the top turret guy would be left doing nothing if it was a standalone spot on the lib, and if it is a hotswap for the main gunner, then it sort of waters down what he's there for.
|
As stated before, the bombardier and top gun would be a shared position of one player.
"Watered down", how so? When a lib starts getting hammered by interceptors, the bombing is over anyways. And on the flight in and the flight out of the target zone, the bombardier has nothing to do.
Originally Posted by Knotz
I think getting a fighter escort is the way to go. What happened in WW2 when bombers were going to other countries? (The Nazi's bombing London/Manchester/Bristol/etcetcetc and the British/Americans bombing Germany towards the end of the war) The bombers were ALWAYS escorted by fighters.
|
And yet, every single bomber in WWII was equipped with a top gun. Not until bombers were able to exceed the flight ceilings of interceptors did they stop putting the top guns on the bombers.
Originally Posted by Knotz
To not do so was suicide. As it should be in PS2 in my humble opinion
|
In my opinion, no vehicle should be suicidal when used in its intended role. And teamwork should ALWAYS trump the solo player - ALWAYS. So when I do the math and see a 3 person vehicle that is totally a sitting duck for a solo vehicle, that smacks of imbalance.
Originally Posted by Neurotoxin
Can you show us an example of a plane or gunship that currently exists, with top-mounted weaponry? I know the game isn't based on reality so realism isn't a factor, but has it ever been done?
|
Modern bombers are made to fly beyond the service ceiling of fighter planes where only specialy designed high-altitude missles can reach. If we are looking for parity between PS2 and the real world then, we should expect that the Galaxy and the Liberator would fly 1000m above where fighters could go. That doesn't sound fun to me.
Originally Posted by Neurotoxin
Libs have the same flight ceiling as other air, so a lib can fly high to keep their top secure. When they are swooping down to do a targeted strike over an area, they trade accuracy for safety.
|
And I absolutely agree with that. My idea doesn't change that. I'm not asking for some kind of "uber-cannon to end all fighter craft". I'm asking for BASIC protection. A simple top gun that can at least return fire, and in the hands of a capable gunner make a single fighter turn away before it kills the Lib.
Originally Posted by Knotz
The Halifax and the B17 look like they might have had them... but they weren't built with balance in mind.
|
They were built with a basic level of self protection and survivablity in mind. That's all I'm asking for too.
Originally Posted by Neurotoxin
As an additional weapon, I say no. However, I'd be okay with it if the bottom gun was replaced with the mechanisms and machinery to have a substantial top-mounted ball turret gun.
Maneuverability and speed may be reduced, but the tradeoff is being able to fly a low-altitude liberator that can act as a hovering anti-air platform. At that rate. the top-mounted gun may as well be flak, though I don't think flak rounds were ever mounted on an aircraft before.
And no I'm not trolling here, I'm saying that having no artillery gun + reduced speed and mobility + top mounted anti-air gun = balanced modification of the lib for an AA platform. If it isn't pounding the ground, it can perforate the air, but I don't believe a lib should be able to do both.
|
That turns into a whole different idea then. If the devs want to make a side-grade version of the Lib that has a top-mounted 360 flak cannon and no bombardier - that would be pretty cool, but WAY beyond the scope of this topic.
I am certainly not advocating that the top gun could "perforate the air", at least no more that the top gun on a MBT is PS1 can.
Originally Posted by Neurotoxin
Another option is giving the middle gunner control of wing-mounted machineguns that are used individually or paired based on where they are aiming. These would be on the ends of the wings, and would have over 180 degree rotation so it can cross over and shoot targets that are lined up vertically to the liberator's orientation. Optics built into the lib would allow for seamless aiming, maybe projecting where the lib frame is as an outline and setting the gunner's view to a virtual location that is dead-center between the two guns. Again, this would have to be instead of the big gun pointed downwards, but would change the lib into more of an AI/AA platform rather than AI/AV.
Does the wing-mounted gun system seem a bit more reasonable? Once again, its an instead-of kinda thing, not that the middle gunner gets both.
|
Again, a cool idea, but way outside the scope of this topic. The top gun I'm proposing could NOT be employed as a an AA specific device. Only a means of basic defense.
Originally Posted by Knotz
I think if it was certed to lose the big boomy gun at the bottom so that it could have AA weaponry, then it could work. Certainly not both or switching between, thats just plain madness.
|
Ok, I feel like I'm not communicating the concept well enough, so here is a drawing I've added to the original post:
This is NOT an "AA gun" per se, but rather an basic line of defense against what is currently an easy kill.
Originally Posted by Talek Krell
I will find it again when I get home tonight and put it up. Should be a couple of hours.
I think that's a bit inaccurate. A Lightning is basically the intended prey of an MBT, but a Lib is supposed to be hunting ground targets. I would equate it more with an MBT calling for help against Libs and air cav.
|
Good comparison. Have you noticed that the guns on top of the MBTs can be used against aircraft? You don't go out HUNTING aircraft with MBTs, but if one comes dogging on you, at least you have something to shoot back with. According to the general answers I'm getting, the top guns should be pulled off of tanks because they are "unbalanced". Now, does that seem right to you?
Originally Posted by Talek Krell
In my own anecdotal experience low flying Libs were rare, but I think it was more to do with the pilots than the tactic. I favored low level bombing whenever I could, it was far more effective.
Of course I also gave up on ever getting a tailgunner very early in my career so....
|
Low level bombing IS more effective and we should see a lot more of it from liberators. But in it's current configuration, even if you have an outstanding tailgunner, he won't get a shot at a persuer because the pilot can't tilt the nose down when close to the ground or they'll crash.
2012-06-22, 05:42 PM
Linear Mode
