15 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

This  entire conversation is proof perfect of why gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluff  

That is the point I had in mind. The question is how to get there.

Don't feed the troll guys.

51 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Actually, an unlockable Model T sounds like it would be pretty funny in a racing game, though rather unrealistic.

That aside, you just ignored a huge point of Guac's post. He was talking about how the balance is from lists as a whole rather than one on one, and you countered with a one on one example. An example of the sort of balance we're talking about is that a Z-95 is unlikely to beat a TIE Defender, but you can fit a lot more on a list, so they're still viable.

I didn't ignore him but he missed my point because i more or less agree with him.

But if you can buy a ship for 20 points that is worse than a ship for 10 points then this ship is useless no matter what list you put it in. That's why i focus on 1vs1 comparison. In the original post someone have said that if you like the ship you can win any game with it, which i find unfair. If you like **** ship then good for you but **** ship shouldn't be winning. That's why i used example of Ford T- very old but expensive to buy and maintain and still no match for anything modern. If you want to fly old scraps like ARC-170 then be ready for high cost and low effectiveness.

5 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

But if you can buy a ship for 20 points that is worse than a ship for 10 points then this ship is useless no matter what list you put it in. That's why i focus on 1vs1 comparison. In the original post someone have said that if you like the ship you can win any game with it, which i find unfair. If you like **** ship then good for you but **** ship shouldn't be winning. That's why i used example of Ford T- very old but expensive to buy and maintain and still no match for anything modern. If you want to fly old scraps like ARC-170 then be ready for high cost and low effectiveness.

Point cost in X-Wing does not equate to credits in universe, it is an abstraction of power. This is true for both 1.0 and 2.0, only 2.0 does it better.

1 minute ago, cupakabra said:

I didn't ignore him but he missed my point because i more or less agree with him.

But if you can buy a ship for 20 points that is worse than a ship for 10 points then this ship is useless no matter what list you put it in. That's why i focus on 1vs1 comparison. In the original post someone have said that if you like the ship you can win any game with it, which i find unfair. If you like **** ship then good for you but **** ship shouldn't be winning. That's why i used example of Ford T- very old but expensive to buy and maintain and still no match for anything modern. If you want to fly old scraps like ARC-170 then be ready for high cost and low effectiveness.

Not if the 20 point ship brings something unique to the table that amplifies the rest of your list. If your opponent adds together ten of your cheap ships for a 100 point list, and you put together an 80 point list then use the last 20 to bring a piece with no combat value by itself, but brings some kind of support/utility feature that amplifies the power of your other ships by 50%, then you've got 120 points worth of list to your opponent's 100 and you are in a superior position. Heck, the (objectively) best ship in the game brings almost no offense and it explodes when subjected to a light breeze, but if you manage to roll that sputtering space golf cart into the middle of an enemy formation it will throw their key piece onto a rock and (literally) ruin your opponent's entire day.

1 hour ago, cupakabra said:

Not really, look at the B-17s during WW2. Huge powerful planes that could fend-off enemies with firepower and do their job, but very vulnerable when approached correctly. It's all about the players.

You apparently know even less about B-17s than you do about X-wings and K-wings.

28 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

But if you can buy a ship for 20 points that is worse than a ship for 10 points...

...then the ships are unbalanced and one or both of them should be repriced.

(Assuming the one is just flat-out worse, and not just being used ineffectually)

3 hours ago, SOTL said:

Go away.

That's a Star Wars quote! Nice work. 10 points for Gryffindor...or something.

18 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

You apparently know even less about B-17s than you do about X-wings and K-wings.

Everything in his sentence was wrong.

Still, stop feeding the troll.

51 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

You apparently know even less about B-17s than you do about X-wings and K-wings.

You mean what exactly was wrong?

Just now, cupakabra said:

You mean what exactly was wrong?

It wasn't a huge, powerful plane. It carried a dramatically smaller bomb load than either the B-24 or the Lancaster. Its "ability to fend off enemies with firepower" was mythical, and it suffered dramatically during daylight bombing raids until US fighters caught up to its range (as did all the US heavy bombers). The 8th AF's daylight bombing raids is probably one of the worst strategic choices the US made in the war. So, as HolySorcerer says, almost every word you uttered was wrong.

There's a great deal of mythology surrounding the B-17, and I love it myself, but the reality is that it was a mediocre aircraft whose biggest strength was in the numbers produced rather than individual quality.

29 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

It wasn't a huge, powerful plane. It carried a dramatically smaller bomb load than either the B-24 or the Lancaster. Its "ability to fend off enemies with firepower" was mythical, and it suffered dramatically during daylight bombing raids until US fighters caught up to its range (as did all the US heavy bombers). The 8th AF's daylight bombing raids is probably one of the worst strategic choices the US made in the war. So, as HolySorcerer says, almost every word you uttered was wrong.

There's a great deal of mythology surrounding the B-17, and I love it myself, but the reality is that it was a mediocre aircraft whose biggest strength was in the numbers produced rather than individual quality.

I've been on a B-17. You couldn't drop my couch out of it, the things were tiny.

10 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

It wasn't a huge, powerful plane. It carried a dramatically smaller bomb load than either the B-24 or the Lancaster. Its "ability to fend off enemies with firepower" was mythical, and it suffered dramatically during daylight bombing raids until US fighters caught up to its range (as did all the US heavy bombers). The 8th AF's daylight bombing raids is probably one of the worst strategic choices the US made in the war. So, as HolySorcerer says, almost every word you uttered was wrong.

There's a great deal of mythology surrounding the B-17, and I love it myself, but the reality is that it was a mediocre aircraft whose biggest strength was in the numbers produced rather than individual quality.

B-17 did almost 3000 flights, dropped over 640 000 tons of bombs and lost less than 4750 planes.

Lancasters did over 1500 flights, dropped less than 610 000 bombs and lost 3300 planes.

It's hard to compare them as Lancasters were made few years later, used by different army in different conditions (at night) but i wouldn't call them much better than B-17.

And there were battles where B-17s have proven not being sitting ducks when they were exposed and took heavy losses overall but shot down a lot of enemy fighters. Luftwaffe was having hard time with them and had to develop special tactics to exploit their weaknesses until they developed technological upperhand.

So i'd say that B-17s could fend off regular fighters until got overwhelmed by numbers, tactics and technology.

3 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

So i'd say that B-17s could fend off regular fighters until got overwhelmed by numbers, tactics and technology.

Just make sure they're priced accordingly to be viable, but still susceptible to swarms or beefier lists bringing lots of tech.

4 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

B-17 did almost 3000 flights, dropped over 640 000 tons of bombs and lost less than 4750 planes.

Lancasters did over 1500 flights, dropped less than 610 000 bombs and lost 3300 planes.

You're copying numbers without even bothering to understand them. I'm not even sure where they're coming from - Lancasters report around 156,000 sorties, so not sure what 1500 flights even means.

Assuming your numbers are at least correct in relation, if meaningless in absolute terms, Lancasters did half the sorties but dropped nearly the same tonnage of bombs, because it carried twice as much (or more, in some mods). The sortie count also speaks to the production count difference as much as anything else than anything else, as there were twice as many B-17s produced. That the Lancaster was a better bomber is obvious just by looking at objective performance stats. Similar speed and range, much higher bomb load. The one advantage the B-17 had was survivability (a common distinguishing trait among American aircraft).

The reality here is that casualty rates were astonishingly high among ALL allied bombers, because none of them had good defenses against enemy fighters.

22 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

So i'd say that B-17s could fend off regular fighters until got overwhelmed by numbers, tactics and technology.

Define "overwhelmed by numbers"? Several of the notable raid reports indicate that even equal numbers of fighters vs. bombers led to a slaughter of the bombers. The Schweinfurt raids resulted in about a 30% casualty rate among the bombers. When they were able to try it again with fighter escort, it was 7%.

There's a lot of propaganda and fanboy love surrounding the B-17, but the idea that it somehow stood up to fighters on its own is pure myth.

11 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

You're copying numbers without even bothering to understand them. I'm not even sure where they're coming from - Lancasters report around 156,000 sorties, so not sure what 1500 flights even means.

Assuming your numbers are at least correct in relation, if meaningless in absolute terms, Lancasters did half the sorties but dropped nearly the same tonnage of bombs, because it carried twice as much (or more, in some mods). The sortie count also speaks to the production count difference as much as anything else than anything else, as there were twice as many B-17s produced. That the Lancaster was a better bomber is obvious just by looking at objective performance stats. Similar speed and range, much higher bomb load. The one advantage the B-17 had was survivability (a common distinguishing trait among American aircraft).

The reality here is that casualty rates were astonishingly high among ALL allied bombers, because none of them had good defenses against enemy fighters.

Define "overwhelmed by numbers"? Several of the notable raid reports indicate that even equal numbers of fighters vs. bombers led to a slaughter of the bombers. The Schweinfurt raids resulted in about a 30% casualty rate among the bombers. When they were able to try it again with fighter escort, it was 7%.

There's a lot of propaganda and fanboy love surrounding the B-17, but the idea that it somehow stood up to fighters on its own is pure myth.

I'm actually kind of curious now. Is there somewhere I can find a list of WW2 bomber aces?

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

I'm actually kind of curious now. Is there somewhere I can find a list of WW2 bomber aces?

I don't believe they tracked and confirmed kills for bombers the way they did for fighters, at least I've never seen any. They were very difficult to confirm.

Even if they did, the numbers are probably really low due to the high casualty rates.

17 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

You're copying numbers without even bothering to understand them. I'm not even sure where they're coming from - Lancasters report around 156,000 sorties, so not sure what 1500 flights even means.

Assuming your numbers are at least correct in relation, if meaningless in absolute terms, Lancasters did half the sorties but dropped nearly the same tonnage of bombs, because it carried twice as much (or more, in some mods). The sortie count also speaks to the production count difference as much as anything else than anything else, as there were twice as many B-17s produced. That the Lancaster was a better bomber is obvious just by looking at objective performance stats. Similar speed and range, much higher bomb load. The one advantage the B-17 had was survivability (a common distinguishing trait among American aircraft).

The reality here is that casualty rates were astonishingly high among ALL allied bombers, because none of them had good defenses against enemy fighters.

Define "overwhelmed by numbers"? Several of the notable raid reports indicate that even equal numbers of fighters vs. bombers led to a slaughter of the bombers. The Schweinfurt raids resulted in about a 30% casualty rate among the bombers. When they were able to try it again with fighter escort, it was 7%.

There's a lot of propaganda and fanboy love surrounding the B-17, but the idea that it somehow stood up to fighters on its own is pure myth.

Sorry, i got some zeros lost, i meant 300000 and 150000.

I did direct comparison of 2 planes which did count bomb drops so dunno what you mean by "meaningless in absolute terms".

Lancasters needed lesser number of flights (could take twice as many bombs), but has worse death/flight ratio so were worse for direct fight.

Second raid on Schweinfurt was a disaster and yet they shot down more numbers than they lost. I'm not saying that they are equal, my "fend off" definition is that attacker is scared to go solo after the target.

By overwhelmed i mean like 2 fighters against 1 bomber, where AA defense is weaker and plane is controlled by enemy. Weak fighters couldn't handle tail gunner by their own. They needed anti-gunner approach tactics, or shooting from beyond range technology.

Propaganda is that B-17 is one man army type of plane, but the facts are that it was vulnerable but not an easy kill.

27 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

I don't believe they tracked and confirmed kills for bombers the way they did for fighters, at least I've never seen any. They were very difficult to confirm.

Even if they did, the numbers are probably really low due to the high casualty rates.

On Wikipedia, I found Norman F. Williams as the only non-fighter pilot WW2 ace for the Royal Australian Air Force. The page on Flying Aces also mentions US B-17 tail gunner, S/Sgt Michael Arooth and RAF Lancaster gunner Wallace McIntosh.

It really is a fascinating topic, and I just wish there were more about it collected in one place.

EDIT: I found that the list of RAF WW2 aces has numerous gunner aces, but that's mostly because of the Boulton Paul Defiant having a turret. This was found to be overpowered, and future waves nerfed the turrets, or even removed them completely in the case of the de Havilland Mosquito.

6 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Point cost in X-Wing does not equate to credits in universe, it is an abstraction of power. This is true for both 1.0 and 2.0, only 2.0 does it better.

You mean because 2.0 is so abstract that even the point cost itself is an abstraction?

Quote

There's a lot of propaganda and fanboy love surrounding the B-17, but the idea that it somehow stood up to fighters on its own is pure myth.

I mean, wasn't the idea that surviving 25 missions was almost impossible, and that only a few B-17s (like Memphis Belle) actually made that number of sorties?

11 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

You mean because 2.0 is so abstract that even the point cost itself is an abstraction?

And 1.0 is better? They are doing the exact same thing, only one now makes changing it easier.

9 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

And 1.0 is better? They are doing the exact same thing, only one now makes changing it easier.

Welcome to Schrodinger's Squadron!

You have no idea whether a pilot is good or not good until you open the app!!

3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I don't believe they tracked and confirmed kills for bombers the way they did for fighters, at least I've never seen any. They were very difficult to confirm.

Even if they did, the numbers are probably really low due to the high casualty rates.

https://lflank.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/master-sgt-michael-arooth-the-forgotten-ace/

3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Welcome to Schrodinger's Squadron!

You have no idea whether a pilot is good or not good until you open the app!!

Trust me, even knowing the price doesn’t inform you of that. By those standards, Etahn A’baht should be awesome in all formats. But that doesn’t follow through. Now there are options in place to fix that without needing more cards and so on.

Can you prove this is not worthwhile?

9 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Trust me, even knowing the price doesn’t inform you of that.

Well, ultimately, shouldn't it??

I mean, isn't the idea of the app is that a pilot should eventually settle into a price point reflecting it's "true value."