Ground target nonsense and other things.

[BigBen]

For the ultimate in realism, I think that if you die in AH, you should have to wait 17-19 years to fly again. This would raslitically simulate conception, gestation, growth, maturity, basic education, basic training.  Then we should be required to spend 6 months in the TA to simulate flight training.  FInally, then and only then should we be allowed in MA.  By the way, The 17-19 year requirement could be reduced to 13 years if a pilot intends to fly late-war LW like the HE-162.  

OK, sarcasm off.    Lazs, I do understand what you are saying, but I think that it is important to be able to close a field quickly.  This is necessary due to the sheer size of the maps we play with.  If each war were intended to last a long time - i.e., weeks or months - then we could do what you propose.  The caveat is that once closed, the base would have to stay closed for a MUCH longer time, hours at a  minimum, to make the closure mean anything and have any strategic value.

I also disagree with your comments regarding buff accuracy.  I know the LGB's we drop from 25K aren't realistic, but it also isn't realistic to have a single buff overfly a base.  To be successful in the market, AH has to be accessible to the individual who doesn't want to fly with a squad or mass formations.  Lt Joe Bob needs to be able to do something measurable to impact the flow of a battle to keep interested.  So, tradeoffs must be made betwwen gameplay and realism.  I don't fault HTC for the deisgn deicsions that they have made- I think they have done a darn good job overall.

Lest this appear to be a total slam on what you have been saying - I do agree with you that there ould be some changes made to acks and/or structures to make the single buff a little less effective.  Case in point, large fields - it's really hard to attack and keep them down due to the sheer scope and complexity of the facility.  But remember one other thing - in war, cratering the runways is a very common tactic.  This alone, in my opiion, should be able to put a field out of action, even if you leave the buildings and acks untouched.  

Perhaps what HTC needs to do is institute a "flow control" type logic for damaged fields.  If the hangars are down, the number of planes allowed to launch are restricted to a lesser number.  Hit the fly button, and you sit in a queue for a couple of minutes until your number comes up.  

Just some rambling mid-day thoughts... thanks for listening.  

BigBen

[BigBen]

<double post, deleted!>

[This message has been edited by BigBen (edited 03-05-2001).]

[AKDejaVu]

 

deja...why don't you just say.... "I like things the way they are and no matter what lazs says I will be against it. I have no ideas of my own but I don't want anything that lazs may think up. In fact i wouldn't know a good idea if it bit me in the ass.

Just as soon as you say "My name is Lazs and fighter hangars will always be too easy for people to take down... especially if preventing means I have to do something other than what I'm willing to do.  I think everything that makes my life easier is a good idea and I don't really give a damn how it affects anyone else."

Your opinion is heavily biased.  This thread has not really adressed any real issues.. just offered fixes that weren't really considered fixed when they themselves were fixed in previous versions.

Sorry to be the one to point that out to you lazs.. but then again I don't think you'd notice anyways.  It just doesn't fit into your plan.

AKDejaVu

[wulfie]

ra,

My understanding is that the big batteries of nose mounted MGs were for ground attack missions.

It was very rare for a WW2 aircraft to engage enemy AAA and come out with a 'kill'.

Your comment hit it right on the head - 'spray the area', so you can suppress the gun while your wingmen finish their attack mission and get the hell out of the area.

Most air forces by then end of WW2 realized that ground attacks versus targets located on the actual battlefield were worthwhile *only to prevent ground units from being overrun/wiped out*, but that's a post for another time when I've got the time and energy to quote from a couple hundred pages of post WW2 documents/studies/etc.

The bottom line - it's too easy find and target enemy AAA weapons, which makes them too easy to kill.

I'm not slamming AH at all - some things have to be possible in the name of gameplay (such as a Pz IVH being blown up or destroyed, as opposed to 'mission killed', by 20mm cannon found on any aircraft), but as it stands, largely in part to the skill and experience of the ground attack specialists in AH, it's too easy to take down an airfield (in terms of assets commited to the attack).

Make the AAA hidden until it fires.

Add bomb dispersion due to wind for level bombers.

Would this really be so bad?

Mike (wulfie)

[wulfie]

Bigben,

A lone B-26 could still contribute and have a sucessful mission.

He'd just have to think in terms of 'I'll pickle my entire bombload on that section of treeline where I saw some AAA gunfire flashes coming from'.

So he does that, and returns to base. Upon landing, he realizes he killed 2 AAA positions with his 8 bomb string.

I think that would be fun. It would have a cool feel. I like to fly B-26s from time to time. I like to land my missions. I come in fast, drop alot of bombs in the area of 2 or 3 targets and run for my life. Plenty of action there for me.

Mike (wulfie)

[wulfie]

Rip1 (yeah I remember those days), 8)

Don't get me wrong. I am not disappointed in AH at all really. The key thing is the problems appear to get looked at and actually fixed.

I think the immersion would be very cool with the revetments idea. Want to hurt a field bad? Carpet bomb it with 4 or 6 B-17s and their 48-72 500 lb. bombs. That's going to blow stuff up all around the field. Then the FB guys come in. The remaining 30% of the AAA guns open up...the FB guys can come after this number of guns and live to tell about it.

Etc., etc., etc.

Mike (wulfie)

[lazs]

ben... u have some valid points.   I have no problem with bombers affecting the "war".  I think that giving the fields some variety in hardness would help both sides.   some airbases in WWII were allmost impossible to close and had to be overrun very late or at the end of the war.   Certainly that would work out in the game for everyone.   If the furball crowd didn't much care about the war they could stay at the big less vulnerable base and ignore the war while the strat guys went on about what they do.   A real life bombing raid would damage some stuff but not shut down operations.   As for cratered runways.... Well, most fields didn't really need runways.   You could talke off from anywhere.

deja said... "Your opinion is heavily biased. This thread has not really adressed any real issues.. just
                     offered fixes that weren't really considered fixed when they themselves were fixed in
                     previous versions."  Huh? Ok.. your gonna have to run that one by me again.   The only thing i understood was that you think my opinion is biased.... Yours isn't?  what a hypocrite.  The only difference is that I am looking for a way that let's everyone have fun while you want to force people to play a certain way.   You are all about removing choice... I am about adding it.   The revetment idea would help some players without hurting anyone.

sorry to be the one to have to tell you but you really have nothing to add.
lazs

[AKDejaVu]

The real issues:

What needs to be weighed is the ability for aircraft to respawn vs the ability to disable them from a field.  Next weigh that against the time the fighters will be disabled and the time required for the fighters to arrive from nearby bases.  Next, figure the ammount of resources needed to accomplish the task vs the ammount of resources needed to prevent it.

Right now the argument is that zero people should be required to prevent a single hangar closure by a single pilot.  This by a country that has plenty of advanced notice of impending attack.

So, wulfie, your solution seems to revolve around 5-6 bombers being required to remove the ability of fighters to launch.  5-6 people dedicating 1 hour of time to getting over a field just to disable fighter launches for 15 minutes forcing people to fly from the next field that is only 8 minutes away.  All this time and effort to coordinate the landing of a cargo airplane that any ONE fighter can destroy with relative consistancy.  Do you think this is a reasonable solution?  I do not.. not even remotely.

The more complex you make it.. the more it will be gamed.  If you keep the objectives simple, you keep the defense simple.  Thus you keep it fit for the MA.  If you want to prevent someone from bombing hangars, get up there and prevent it.  If you don't want to, hope others do.  If others don't want to, then sorry for your little chess piece.

What is NOT a consideration in any of this is the argument "I don't like the fighter hangars being down so lets make it more difficult".

AKDejaVu

[AKSeaWulfe]

The game as is caters to everyone. Changing it one way or the other cuts out the other person's type of game.
-SW

[lazs]

sea... you are correct... to a point but...  There has been a change.   The map has changed.  so... IMO, has the balance.   I see adding revetrments (more ground targets) as a good thing for both sides.   Far from adding complexity and ability to "game".  It would take away the ability to game the game.  It would add realism.  If several of the fields were near invulnerable and had to be left for the end of the war as "strategy"... What would be wrong with that?  The strat guys could be taking out the more vulnerable fields while the furballers could be enjoying the action at the hard fields.  

Certainly you would agree that hitting the fighter hangers at several close fields with a lone buff from 20-30K is a pretty lame strat element?
lazs

[wulfie]

You can't keep defense simple, because right now there is no effective defense.

Take the entire AK squadron. They could not stop 4 guys who don't care if they die from closing the fighter operations at an airfield.

Thog dive in at fighter hangars at high speed. Fire rockets. Fire cannon. Drop bombs last minute.

Eventually, the guys are going to close the fighter capability. 4 guys rolling from a couple of fields time and time again after they get slaughtered by AK CAP.

Add some actual need for target intel and you add the need to have air superiority over the target.

Mike (wulfie)

[wulfie]

DejaVu,

My idea is that it's stupid to know exactly were all of the enemy's weak spots are all the time, to the extent that even after you download plans of the enemy defenses from the internet the enemy does not change the positioning of their defenses or address any of their weak spots.

It is stupid (in my opinion) for a lone B-17 to be able to shut down fighter operations at several airfields. There are numerous fixes for this problem...

A. Add some wind effects and bomb dispersion.
B. Add some 'fog of war' to the target list. Take the giant white letters saying 'DROP 2 BOMBS THIS STRUCTURE TO DISABLE ENEMY FIGHTER AVAILABILITY' off of the tops of the hangars.
C. Etc.

As long as a lone level bomber can do what is mentioned above, it is not a contest of strategic, operational, or tactical skill. It is whomever has less of a life = wins. Do you really expect guys to climb to 30,000' over and over again and fly BARCAP to try and spot that lone Lancaster?

As long as the targets are always the same and always well known you have 3 sides with a limitless supply of kamikaze ground attack pilots that cannot be stopped by even the most disciplined CAP operation. Historically, it has always been a real squeak to stop people who did not care if they died. It is no differenct in the AH main arena.

I don't think the 'fly seriously' types should have rules made up to favor them. But there should be a balance between the kamikazes and the guys who give a f*ck about landing.

Mike (wulfie)

[AKDejaVu]

 

Take the entire AK squadron. They could not stop 4 guys who don't care if they die from closing the fighter operations at an airfield.

Even if we couldn't prevent the hangar from going down.. that's 10 pilots flying over a base.  We'd just need to hold it for 15 mins and the hangars would be back up.  Who would the hangar being down impact?

 

My idea is that it's stupid to know exactly were all of the enemy's weak spots are all the time, to the extent that even after you download plans of the enemy defenses from the internet the enemy does not change the positioning of their defenses or address any of their weak spots.

Ahhh.. but what about the variables?  You know.. the players?  Do you know how an enemy might know where they are at all times?

This argument is no more or less valid than knowing exactly how fast the enemy's plane is, or exactly what kind of armament he has, or exactly what the compression speed is or any of that.  These things are constants.  The things that aren't are called pilots.

 

It is stupid (in my opinion) for a lone B-17 to be able to shut down fighter operations at several airfields. There are numerous fixes for this problem...

Not at several, at two.  And... it is equally stupid for an entire country to ignore the fact that a b-17 just bombed a hangar and not send anyone up to greet him.  That is often the case... stratobuff is simply a term used to make an excuse for the preceding not even being attempted.

 

A. Add some wind effects and bomb dispersion

Prove this is realistic.  Many people with hands-on experience delivering ordinance from aircraft claim it is not.  Wind effects on the bomb path are negligeable according to them and their attack trainers.

 

Add some 'fog of war' to the target list. Take the giant white letters saying 'DROP 2 BOMBS THIS STRUCTURE TO DISABLE ENEMY FIGHTER AVAILABILITY' off of the tops of the hangars.

3 bombs actually.. more than 2k.  And.. don't forget.. "Disable for exactly 15 minutes".  Its somewhat easy for one plane to do... and the effect is somewhat minimal.  We aren't talking about a capture or even hours of downtime.. simply 15 minutes.

 

Do you really expect guys to climb to 30,000' over and over again and fly BARCAP to try and spot that lone Lancaster?

I've never seen a lancaster up that high.  I suppose its possible.. but not likely.  Like I said.. "stratobuff" is more of an excuse than anything else.  Most buffs are between 22k and 24k.  A G-10 could make it there in pretty short time.

I do think that the Norden has too high of magnification.  It should not be that easy to resolve targets over 25k.

 

As long as the targets are always the same and always well known you have 3 sides with a limitless supply of kamikaze ground attack pilots that cannot be stopped by even the most disciplined CAP operation.

As long as the enemy can see you coming from the time your plane elevates above 500 feet.  As long as RADAR gives away your exact position 15 miles out.  As long as you know exactly what the capabilities of the enemy planes are.

As for stopping the most disciplined CAP opperation.. That's pretty easy.  Meet them with equal numbers at equal alt and the guys with bombs are at a distinct disadvantage.  They may get a few targets... but they won't get the base.

Oh.. wait.. we weren't talking about defense in this thread... the game has to do all this for us.

 

Historically, it has always been a real squeak to stop people who did not care if they died. It is no differenct in the AH main arena.

Tell that to the people that constantly respawn just as the C47 is arriving.  It works both ways, but this thread only seems to recognize one side of it.

AKDejaVu

[wulfie]

"Prove this is realistic. Many people with hands-on experience delivering ordinance from aircraft claim it is not. Wind effects on the bomb path are negligeable according to them and their attack trainers."

No. A waste of my time. You show me a single example of a level bomber using 1 or 2 bombs to knock out a specific hangar sized structure when bombing with level bomb sights.

Then, you can show me a specific example in WW2 where a single bomber kept an airfield from deploying aircraft for any period of time at all.

If you remove the pinpoint LGB capabilities of level bombers, I fully agree that the only thing 'fair' to do for the guys who enjoy level bomber missions is to give saturation/carpet/etc. bombing a reason to exist.

Those lone B-17s/Lancs almost always get shot down. Someone eventually climbs up and shoots them up.

Who knows? Maybe when in flight radar is gone medium altitude (and thus less time getting to altitude) level bomber carpet bombing attacks with a moderate escort will be more viable?

My base argument - considering the total number of airfields a side has, it takes too few assets to neutralize an airfield.

Hide the AAA.

Make it so players know what type of target to hit, but not what exact target to hit.

Do you really think this will make fields uncapturable?

Mike (wulfie)

[-ammo-]

 

Originally posted by ra:
<<WW2 aircraft didn't really ever pull off SEAD missions.>>

I don't know what is meant by 'pull off' but WWII aircraft often suppressed ack by strafing.  Many of the planes you see with huge batteries of machine guns in their noses were used for such missions (Beaufighters, A-26's, B-25's, etc.).  I've also read of accounts of fighter bombers doing the same, looking for signs of light AA and diving down to spray the area.

ra

Very true. My squadie Sancho has a book that details the experiences of the 9th AF P-47 squads. Their primary mission was jabo. There job was to straff everything of military value they could see on the ground. I cant remember the name of the book..But man it was a good read, hairraising.

   




[This message has been edited by -ammo- (edited 03-05-2001).]