Aye, I know, Jordi. I'm not naysaying or belittling any of the effort going into the game, m'dear. What I am saying is that to make it easier to recruit buffers, the games need to be thought out around buffers in the first place.
You yourself have said that there will NOT be certain important aspects to the game that were present in RL and that one could have in such a game. And I've pointed out that handing the foe the name of the target in advance wasnt exactly standard procedure for those planning bomber operations, and that doing so in scenario games like this creates problems (because you then have to invent some way of preventing the defenders from camping on the target in an unrealistic manner) unecessarily.
Aye, no-one's perfect, we all make mistakes, oversights, etc. I know I do; I'm just trying to do my bit by making suggestions to help improve things for future is all. You may recall that I HAVE been involved in helping get one of these together in AH before (as well as other times elsewhere, too), and the biggest problems then were that there were too many preconceived notions in place before any buffers were even asked about it. What resulted went surprisingly well, considering, but could have been so much better had the buffing side been looked into earlier and in more detail.
Guppy pointed out a potential problem, I'm just speaking to that and pointing out other possible, and avoidable, problems. Maybe they'll affect the game greatly maybe they won't - let us hope not. What can we do based on what info we see here, though? And surely it is better to discuss these kinds of issues for the benefit of all, rather than just keep quiet and cross our fingers? Pool our knowledge and experience, kind of thing?
One of the things that may be being overlooked here is that when trying to refight (in a way) a historical event, it isn't only the hardware but the organisation and skills of those using the hardware that plays a part in making it go in the kind of way wanted. No disrespect to our friends that prefer MA-style gaming to realistic style gaming, but the two are very different, and I've come across a few folk quite enthusiastic about bombers who nevertheless think that all there is to using bombers is to learn the way AH works and press the relevant buttons. They see folk who like to try to do things in as realistic a manner as possible, and wonder why we dont fly at full throttle, why we dont just grab a plane from the nearest airfield, why we bother with formation flying (when appropriate), why we dont like taking off at airfields at extreme elevations, and why we carpet-bomb when we each have perfetly good bombsights, and so on.
I've seen entire units think like that, over the years. And I've seen them take part in big organised games and wonder why the heck they got the stuffing knocked out of them when the other units that didnt go in "hard and fast" did not. The reason is often that no matter their affection for their planes, that they did not understand bomber operations very well.
I've been surprised, too, over the years, at how tenuous a grasp on WW2 history some folk are who play these WW2 simulation games. Again, it's no skin off my nose and nothing shameful that they don't know their history well, but if they don't understand the subject, it's not surprising that they have funny ideas about the best ways to do things, and end up learning the painful way what works and what does not., when history is there to show them what is liable ot work (bearing in mind that the software reality will have differences to teh real reality that impact things).
I don't claim to be an expert on all aspects of WW2 air warfare, far from it. I specialise in what the LW and RAF got up to in the West, and know least about what happened in the PTO. I've also had experience of planning raids realistically (insofar as the software allows) many a time over the years. And bomber planning is all about military intelligence, deception, and downright sneakiness. Even the apparently in-yer-face daylight raids that 8th AF and near the end, the RAF ran used deception whenever possible to keep casualties down. Bomber operations were suspended now and then in the face of unacceptable casualty rates, whilst they thought of new ways to get things done, or waited for new equipment to come into service.
And its not just me or my unit. I know of at least two other units that play in online WW2 games that think the same way, and that are outstandingly succesful because of it. Less casualtuies, more times through to target, more RTB's - all because we strive hard to do what we do as best we possibly can. It might not seem as glamorous learning proper bomber skills as it does learning the finer points of ACMs and deflection shooting, but it rewards learning just as much.
Games that allow those skills to be put to use tend to go better than those that do not, in my experience. And they are a lot more fun for the bomber pilots, and just as much fun for the fighter pilots.
So I'm just trying to help to nudge folks to "think bomber" more in future, is all. It's just that points relating to the current game have, naturally, cropped up. I'm not decrying the effort that's gone into the current game, OK? No need to be so defensive, Jordi, none at all.
Esme
