Strategic vs tactical: Just an idea...

[Lusche]

How often has anyone bombing strats affected game play?

Now that's a very good question 

(To answer the superficial part of it: Since the strats redesign: Not many times... if at all )

[cobia38]

How often has anyone bombing strats affected game play?

 never seen it have any impact whatsoever

[The Fugitive]

In the old days you'd see radar dropped a couple times a night. When it was you'd see whole squads drop everything and resupply to get the dar back on. Remember many a night being one of many C47 flying through the mountain passes making resupply runs. 

Todays player hasn't a clue as to what "tactical" or strategic" means. The only way your going to get hordes cut back is to restrict them with a game mechanic, zone ENY, zone vehicle limits, or some other mechanic that makes it harder with more people than it could be with less.

While I think more people play for score than admit it making the strats more "valuable" may bring a few more people to hit Strats, but it isn't going to help slow the horde. You still going to have more than enough hitting a single base with no intention of fighting against anything but the buildings.

[Vinkman]

I don't want to change all and everything. I don't want everyone stop attacking bases in 24's.

I'm trying to increase variety. More reasons to select a medium bomber for a certain mission type. More reasons to use heavy bombers for "strategic" mission types. And finally, make the most difficult target the source of beloved score points instead of easy attacks random town centers.

A matter of balance and variety.

I get it. I think folks do attack for score. But many like to just drop the hangars and will continue to do so even if they get no points for it. Are you suggesting B-24 bombs only work against designated targets? or just the points?

[Lusche]

I get it. I think folks do attack for score. But many like to just drop the hangars and will continue to do so even if they get no points for it. Are you suggesting B-24 bombs only work against designated targets? or just the points?

Just the points. I do not want the bombs to magically fail or similar stuff. Hangars could still be dropped with any kind of plane, though player might bow consider using medium bombers for this kind of tactical attacks, while the 'classic' heavies are going more for the deep raid stuff.

But nobody is forced to do so - It's just as is is already with 'pure' fighters. They still can deack fields or kill town buildings. They just do not score.

[Lusche]

but it isn't going to help slow the horde

But that is not my intention anyway, though I would not complain if that would happen (verrrry unlikely though).

[Patches1]

Perhaps having the Bomber, or Bomber/Attack player having to pick a "Mission Profile" in the Hangar whilst selecting their load-out and being scored according to the profile selected may be an option to explore; bombs dropped outside of the selected Mission Profile would not be scored. This does not mean a target would not be destroyed, only that the pilot would not receive score for destroying targets outside of the selected Mission Profile.

For example, Mission Profiles could be "Tactical", meaning surgically hitting airfields and their related airfield targets, or "Strategic", long range bomber missions hitting only the Strat Targets. "Air-to-Ground" missions could also be a category and be scored only by hitting and interdicting GVs, or CVs.

Towns could become "No Value" targets (no points awarded) unless as a part of an organized base take mission planned in the Mission Editor where the Bomber pilot could select "Town" as his mission profile. This doesn't mean Towns couldn't be bombed, it simply means that the Bomber Pilot would not receive any points for bombing the Town unless he/she was a part of an organized mission planned through the Mission Editor for that particular Base/Town where they selected "Town" as their Mission Profile.

Next, make the Strats important enough to warrant a 2 hour Mission by a single set of Bombers to hit them. Raise the amount of time for Strats to resupply themselves significantly. Soften the City Strat and harden the other Strats. Make defending the City Strat very important since it resupplies the other Strats, but make the other Strats a bit more difficult to take down.

[Traveler]

Perhaps having the Bomber, or Bomber/Attack player having to pick a "Mission Profile" in the Hangar whilst selecting their load-out and being scored according to the profile selected may be an option to explore; bombs dropped outside of the selected Mission Profile would not be scored. This does not mean a target would not be destroyed, only that the pilot would not receive score for destroying targets outside of the selected Mission Profile.

For example, Mission Profiles could be "Tactical", meaning surgically hitting airfields and their related airfield targets, or "Strategic", long range bomber missions hitting only the Strat Targets. "Air-to-Ground" missions could also be a category and be scored only by hitting and interdicting GVs, or CVs.

Towns could become "No Value" targets (no points awarded) unless as a part of an organized base take mission planned in the Mission Editor where the Bomber pilot could select "Town" as his mission profile. This doesn't mean Towns couldn't be bombed, it simply means that the Bomber Pilot would not receive any points for bombing the Town unless he/she was a part of an organized mission planned through the Mission Editor for that particular Base/Town where they selected "Town" as their Mission Profile.

Next, make the Strats important enough to warrant a 2 hour Mission by a single set of Bombers to hit them. Raise the amount of time for Strats to resupply themselves significantly. Soften the City Strat and harden the other Strats. Make defending the City Strat very important since it resupplies the other Strats, but make the other Strats a bit more difficult to take down.

The mission planning tool in AH is not what it used to be, and I don’t see AH making any changes soon.  What’s wrong with your plan is that often my squad leaves a base with Heavy P38’s enroute we find that we have been tasked to a secondary target.  Or tasked to dump our ords and provide a fighter CAP .   That the basis nature of our mission has changed. How do you see these type of changes in mission being accommodated with your plan?

[Patches1]

The mission planning tool in AH is not what it used to be, and I don’t see AH making any changes soon.  What’s wrong with your plan is that often my squad leaves a base with Heavy P38’s enroute we find that we have been tasked to a secondary target.  Or tasked to dump our ords and provide a fighter CAP .   That the basis nature of our mission has changed. How do you see these type of changes in mission being accommodated with your plan?

Traveler,

What I have proposed is (so far) Bomber-Centric. What you have brought forth is Fighter/Attack. I've no issues with the current Fighter/Attack mode.
Being a Corsair nut myself, I enjoy a good Fighter/Attack Mission. ;-)

As for the Mission Editor, I've no idea what HiTech and crew can do with it; I've only postulated an idea that could potentially be tied to the Mission Editor, if coding such is possible.

As for Bombers flying under the same scenario you have described, perhaps, again, in the Hangar, a Mission Profile could be selected with Primary and Secondary targets also selected under that particular Mission Profile...just some thoughts.

[Vinkman]

Just the points. I do not want the bombs to magically fail or similar stuff. Hangars could still be dropped with any kind of plane, though player might bow consider using medium bombers for this kind of tactical attacks, while the 'classic' heavies are going more for the deep raid stuff.

But nobody is forced to do so - It's just as is is already with 'pure' fighters. They still can deack fields or kill town buildings. They just do not score.

I like the idea. I had mentioned something similar a while back which was increasing the points for Strats over Bases.  Your idea takes that to it's end point. 

[Karnak]

To be fair, I would add the "attack" category to the B-26 too. (And maybe remove it from the Mossie?)

B Mossies were used for attack type missions, such as chucking 4k bombs into train tunnels.

EDIT:

It would be nice if the perk point rewards were pretty equal between hitting the city or factories and hit town centers.

[Lusche]

B Mossies were used for attack type missions, such as chucking 4k bombs into train tunnels.

EDIT:

It would be nice if the perk point rewards were pretty equal between hitting the city or factories and hit town centers.

That was a brain fart on my side anyway. The Mossie doesn't have an attack rating. 

[dirtdart]

Lusche, it seems to me the answer goes back to perking ordnance.  If the system for ordnance was worked out, in say a one for one exchange rate, then you might see an end to lanc stuka and so forth, here is my explanation.

I receive one bomb perk for every object damaged relative to the damage potential of the ordnance.  Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe there is a point system of potential damage attached to each ord and when they explode that damage affects what it can.  So, if I destroy a tank with a single bomb, I get my bomb perk back, no perk loss (say generic vehicle).  If I destroy XX buildings using one XXXX bomb I get my one bomb perk back.  Make a system where it is a low sum game.  This would force precision with bombing and perhaps put an end to the lancstuka and heavy bombers at 4k dropping 8k of ords on a jeep. 

If ords were perked, I would probably award everyone in the game say 20 perks a month, no one is perfect after all. Then it is on the player to improve their ord perks or lose them all based on choices or accuracy.  I think that alone would have a huge impact on the game, especially if HTC made the strats the big perk winners for perked ords instead of the towns.   

[Karnak]

I think the idea of perking bombs on bombers is absurd.  That is their primary role.  It would be like perking guns on a fighter. Perking the larger, or even all, bombs on fighters would help give bombers a more distinct role instead of frequently being overshadowed by bomb laden fighters.

[Tilt]

I would vote for ords over 500lb to carry perks. It would not be the total load that would carry the perk just the load type.

i.e both the P51 and the Lanc would have free access to 500lb bombs but would carry and equal total perk when 1000lbers are used and the lanc would carry an even higher total perk when using the cookie. The ac has to land successfully to save the perk price)

Some rarer gun load outs could also be perked e.g the three cannon La7

Perk would be set on the hanger option list.

Back on subject

I think level bombers should be rewarded for killing towns and I think also (reluctantly) hangers. But not GV's (if they are even rewarded for killing GV's)

Re attack mode/classification I think a lot more can and should be done with it (que Krusty)