The major factor in low-level bombing being so common is there is no penalty for going low. You don't actually die. Bomber and fighter losses were much higher at low altitude. Even in the B-29s. B-29s were lost because they lost control at 5,000 ft in the convection caused by the firestorm.
The 8th Air Force started recording ground kills because it was so dangerous to go down in the flak and get them.
In the game, I find little difference in survivability with altitude. IRL, the bombers went high because more of them came home if they did. Tactics and altitudes varied widely and low-altitudes and delayed fusing were used where it made more sense ( and it could be survived ), usually in the Pacific.
In the game, at altitude, the radar sees you and allows intercepts and you die, often before the bomb run. At low altitude, at least they don't see you quicky enough to react. I RTB in bombers about 1 out of 5 times, usually only when there is little opposition. BTW, I still fly high.
NOE heavies is un-realistic, but it represents folks adapting tactics to the reality of 'combat'.
I think bomb-drop angles should be accurate for the aircraft.
I think bomb detonation damage should be more accurate so the attacker must stay higher.
I think flak should be more lethal for bigger targets, or use Kweassa's idea of rings of flak around the bases.
If you die 9 out of 10 times trying to strafe/bomb a base with a Buff, you'll adapt and try something else. Do we go straight in on base ack and straight out? I bet we all have learned to manuever.
Otherwise, the only thing that will slow this down is a penalty for death, which I think would cause a bigger argument than the ENY deal.
Alternately, simulate ground observers, as were used in the Battle of Britain to report low-level contacts. Oh, boy, another can of worms...
Maybe the answer is teamwork. Advance Jabos to kill the dar, scorts right there with you. We could get some ex-Redtails to teach us how to escort...they obviously had it figured out.
