Ground target nonsense and other things.

[wulfie]

hblair,

I've had about 3 accounts in AH spanning roughly 1 year. Probably 4 months total playing time.

I just made my 'wulfie' account to come over 'for good' from WB, because AH is better in my opinion.

I have more than 1 bomber sortie recently.

Mike (wulfie)

[This message has been edited by wulfie (edited 03-06-2001).]

[hblair]

 

I just made my 'wulfie' account to come over 'for good' from WB, because AH is better in my opinion.

Fair enough  

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by lazs:
sea... i think you will agree that being rook last tour in a different map entirely is quite different than being one of the radarless and fighter hangerless few in this new map.   Apples and oranges really.  

I guess, but it wasn't the first time we were rooks. We've been rooks, or knights or bishops through thick and thin when it was our time to rotate into that country. Never ran away from a fight. Now when I log in as a bishop, if I see us fighting the rooks I get on the country channel and convice about half of them to move up and fight the knights in the north. Then I proceed to banter the knights on ch1 and convince them to move their fight up north too, thus providing some relief to the rooks. I don't do this out of "good will" for the rooks, I do this because I want to find a fight, and the only large fights I can muster are between knights and bishops.

 

Originally posted by lazs:
I am not really sure what you mean about the bombers tho.   Are you saying that for gameplay lone bombers should be able to affect dozens of players?   why shouldn't bombers have to fly in groups?   why should  a lone bomber be given any more chance to ruin peoples game than a lone fighter?   How can fighters affect the bombing war?   Most furballers aren't even interested in bombers they aren't much fun to kill even.

No, I'm saying... Go buy that B17 game and you will truly understand what I meant. You have to spend 10 minutes with your face in the norden to get the target lined up and locked and to get the wind drift properly calculated into the bomb sight. The bombers in AH would be completely defenseless during this time, unless they brought along a gunner.

Anyways, everyone knows that a F4U-1C with 2x1Kers can do as much damage to 2 fighter hangars as a level bomber can. It's just a matter of the ack being up or down.

Level bombers rarely impact my game, and if I take off underneath one or am near one I usually climb up to make sure he regrets he came over the target.
-SW

[Jekyll]

 

Research the Norden and find out why it is totally impractical in today's aircraft before making such ignorant statements. What were the requirements for an accurate drop? Why would that make a bomber a total sitting duck with today's anti-aircraft weaponry?

And your point is?????

Oh you've hurt me to the quick!  I profess my ignorance to you Oh DejaVu  

So tell me this.  You are in a WW2 B17 at 25000 feet.  The wind is calm, the sky is blue and clear.

I'm sitting in my car on the ground far below you.  And you are seriously trying to tell me that in real life you could have dropped one bomb from 25k and have it impact neatly in the middle of my car's roof?

 

Let me ask you this, how effective would bombers have been in Europe if fighters never engaged them? I guarantee airbases would have been closed for a hell of a lot longer than 15 minutes.

Well, I suppose if we had up to 1000 buffs hitting an AH airbase it would not only close; it would probably be blown straight across into one of Nuttz' terrains  

Or are you suggesting that a single WW2 buff hitting an enemy airfield would close it for more than 15 minutes.  With the accuracy of WW2 level bombing, there's a fair chance that the occupants of said airbase might never have known they were even under attack!

Apples and oranges Deja.. please don't compare the damage done from 1000 plane raids with the current 'sillyness' of buff accuracy in here  

The destruction of fighter hangers simulates destruction of enemy fighters at the airfield, right?

OK, let's look at some history.  On 18 August 1940, the Luftwaffe mounted an attack on Kenley aerodrome.  12 Ju88s of II Gruppe were to carry out a precision dive bombing attack on the hangers and airfield installations.  Five minutes later, 27 Do17s of I and III Gruppen were to deliver a horizontal bombing attack from 12000 feet and knock out the ground defences.  Five minutes later, 9 Do17s of the 9th Staffel were to run in at low altitude and finish off any important buildings that were still standing.  Although they inflicted severe damage, the attacks did not put Kenley out of action for long.  Within a couple of hours, the airfield had a usable runway and fighter operations resumed.  48 bombers - and the airfield is back in operation within 2 hours.

But here is the important part:  The four RAF fighters destroyed on the ground during the attack at Kenley represented a 'rare success' for the German bomber force.  During three and a half weeks of concentrated attacks on Fighter Command airfields in the BoB, fewer than 20 Spitfires and Hurricanes were destroyed on the ground at those airfields.

------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 03-07-2001).]

[popeye]

Ummmm...let's remember that this issue is about GAMEPLAY, not realism, unless we all want to accept "one life per player".  

I think we need to consider the investment a player has in mastering a particular game skill, the time he risks for a particular mission, the reward he gets for completing the mission successfully, and the overall impact he has on gameplay.

For a fighter, the investment is very high, the risk is very low, the reward and impact are low.

For a bomber the investment is moderate, the risk is very high, the reward and impact are high.

For a vehicle driver, the investment is low, the risk is high, the reward is moderate, and the impact is low.

For the gunner, the investment is very low, the risk is very low, the reward is low, and the impact is very low.

For the goon, the investment is moderate, the risk is moderate, the reward is low, and the impact is very high.

What does it all mean?  A tough balancing act for HTC.    

[lazs]

sea don't be so defensive... I did not mention you or anyone else so far as being rook goes.  I am not rook.  I didn't see any of your messages and could have cared less if i did.  I also say that rook have enough problems without being outnumbered and radarless.  Now, if everyone were as altruistic as you and worried as much about making things fair then... I suppose all would be well.   Unfortunately the average player is no where near the saintliness of you or ur squaddies.   sooo... we have to deal with reality here.  

One reality is that the country with the biggest excess of numbers can and does afford to have bombers to play with.   with everything else going on, said bombers have the best chance in the game (compared to low number/base countries) of reaching targets while their fighters are distracting.   Another reality is that a whole lot of guys simply don't care about any strat or even have any country loyalty.   I have no interest in being rook for instance.   They simply want a good fite.  The fights cease to be good when one country has no radar or lacks any reasonable place to take off.   I'ts not fun for me to have the oppossite situation  either.  I don't like fighting over scraps and don't care who (cough) "wins the war".  I would have not interest in flying for a squad that was "mission"  (AH mission) oriented.

Like jekyl I have read a lot of history and this instant base closure really chafes.   It is really gimicky.  It is one of the reasons I don't do "strat".   The "strat" is meaningless and phony.   the bombers are meaningless and phony.   Maybe it can't be fixed but it certainly can be improved wouldn't you agree?
lazs

[This message has been edited by lazs (edited 03-07-2001).]

[pzvg]

Some of you are getting off kilter, Modern aircraft, with the exception of an A10, don't carry the same weight of ordnance,nor do they fly as slow, and would you really want to be in the target area of a B17? If you say yes, My mother says you're an idiot,
since unlike you, she has a very good idea of what that means, and since we're on the subject, 3 1,000 lb bombs to knock out a hanger? Guys, quit thinking in modern terms,
These things weren't hardened, Hell, I spent most of my tour in the Army in Germany working out of a WWII German fighter field, That hanger could have been flattened by a near miss from a 500 Lbr, Think open frame construction, not exactly the toughest building around. As for the realism of closing bases, Some of us actually like to win at things, and since the game only allows victory by taking fields, there has to be a method to allow that, since each country comes with a never-ending supply of planes and pilots to man them, guess we need a way to deny them use for a time to allow a capture attempt to take place, You argue that loss of hangers would not really stop operations at a field, true, but then again, there is no such thing as killing all the ack either, In real life planes don't pop up to defend a base against tank attack, by the time enemy armor gets there, all flyable aircraft and base personnel are long gone, The game makes concessions to gameplay, otherwise there is no game, But do not for one moment assume that what you like to do, or what your friends like to do, is all that counts,unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your backers are numerous enough that HTC will not suffer revenue loss by catering to your needs,whilst losing those who do not agree, I don't think things will change that much, some shifts may occur but not in the overall manner you might wish. And in point of fact, if you did get what you want, you may find that it wasn't really what you wanted.

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[lazs]

pz... no real arguement with anything you have said.  I also feel that all styles should be accomadated.   I have also said many times that i can only speak for myself and the dozen or so others who I have talked to...  I can assume that there are a percentage of players out there that feel the same.   I also know that there is a percentage that heartily dissagrees with me and that would like a very simple strat plan such as we have but wish that it was more "forced".... that the game forced people to take it seriously.

All I am asking is that there be a haven from the, what I and others consider, gimicky and nonsensical and needlessly restrictive strat.  Adding revetments would make some bases realisticaly hard and a fun place to furball from while having no affect on those who prefered to fly differently.

I do feel sorry for the strat guys because they have to force people to fly their way while the fun and action set merely needs a place to hang out and then they get all the recruits they want.   furballs attract players.   Strat guys get angry when furballers won't play their game.   furballers get angry when they are denied the opportunity to play.   see the diff?
lazs

[AKSeaWulfe]

Lazs, I just want the fields to be moved closer to together. Close enough to force a heavy bomber to have to take off from a rear field rather than what they do right now.

Currently they can take off from a forward field and can climb towards a base right away. I think that's rediculous, bombers always took off far from the action and flew towards their targets at ~22K.

I also don't understand why they allow bombers to take off as field defense.

Oh well....
-SW

[lazs]

sea... fields closer together are fine but it doesn't really solve the problem.   dedicated  field busters (actually fighter hanger busters) can still close the silly fighter hangers at many fields.  

I guess if we are stuck with fighter hangers and the simplistic targets at fields along with the bizzare bomber accuracy then....

an interim solution would be closer fields and having fighters available untill the entire field is closed not just a couple of carports like we have now for every field, big or small.   I can't believe that anyone can be imersed in this excuse for "strat".
lazs

[popeye]

Just move the center island fields closer together.  They are "big" fields with enough ack to deter jabos and several fighter hangars, so no lone bomber is going to be able to shut them down, and they aren't  "stepping stones" for field captures, so they can be ignored by the strat players.

[This message has been edited by popeye (edited 03-07-2001).]

[This message has been edited by popeye (edited 03-07-2001).]

[Lepton]

I know this is not a realism vs. game thread, but there are a few bits of mis-information floating about.
Facts from the Air Force Museum's website.

By 1944, the Norden allowed the 8th Air Force to deliver 40% of their bombs to within 500yd s of the target. A vast improvement over the accuracy of earlier bombers.

Every modern US aircraft intended for ground attack carries a bigger bombload than the B-17. The 17's normal bombload was 6,000 lbs.
The F-15, for example, carries 15,000 lbs of ordnance.

[pzvg]

Fact from my sister,(also known as the USAF)   to her rather extensive knowledge, no air force F15E has ever carried the total ord weight listed in the data, the builder says it can, but no one's tried it  
I concede the point that some planes can carry more 1000 lbr's than a 17.
Now, since Lazs did make a relevant point, I can make a very disagreeable suggestion,
Read it all the way through before firing up the flamethrower.

The ACM minded folk, (no use of simple terms, let's call it what it really is)
Live for the pure fight, plane vs plane, pitting skill and HP against like. They suffer from the actions of the Tactical crowd, (It's not Strat, there is no strategic effect in the game as it stands)
Who like to achieve measurable success by concentrated effort (taking fields)
These should go well together, but do not since this isn't a real military, but a collection of enthusiasts with varying interests.

Now that the true, non-prejudiced reasons behind the friction is laid out, let's examine interim solutions.

Buffs enabled only at rear fields, won't work, Why? there are no battlelines, unless the war grinds to halt, those fields will be on the front line sooner or later, plus it gives the side that's winning a point target for bomber suppression.

Move fields closer together, fallacy, the fields are already closer together than the Battle of Britain, moving them even closer gives you a narrow window between opposing antiaircraft fire, And neither side wants that now do they?

Multiple revetments for fighters, This has merit, since in the strictest sense of gameplay, a defended field is a very tough target, but an undefended one can fall to even one lone player, not only unrealistic, but a gameplay killer.

One of my suggestions, Increase the ack at bases, while turning it's accuracy way down
right now the AAA is ahistorical, light in numbers and caliber, while ungodly in it's accuracy, turning down the accuracy, while increasing the numbers, would make AAA hard to remove, yet still useful for defense.

Another unpopular idea, zone fields, Once enemy armor enters the zone, no aircraft may take off only armor may spawn from that base, to balance this, every structure on a base is a VH, to overrun the base you have to down everything.

Chew on it a while, then let's talk some more.

Pyro,Hitech, I'd like to hear your take on this too, even if it's to say we couldn't do it that way.

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[pzvg]

<bump> Look at this folks tell me what ya think

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[lazs]

pz... you have laid it out about as I see it. It seems inescapable to me that, right now,  the so called "strat" guys can shut down the acm guys at will in this game.  The strat guys don't understand that the acm guys do not admire their skill and teamwork... we do not think that flying an extra sector or two is small price to pay to witness such wonderful teamwork.  We simply get pissed and log...So....

No matter what, I can't get around the fact that the acm guys need a place to take off that suits our short attention spans.   I can't get around the fact that this entails "hard" fields either revetment (best IMO) or allow fighters to take off untill the fields last gasp a la WB.
lazs