bomber formations

[gyrene81]

Despite our past disagreements, I have no problem discussing this idea with you in a civil way and you have done the same here. But you keep debating things like this when I know you are smart enough to know better. How could you possibly believe that a pilot jumping from gun to gun firing at single targets is more realistic than AI gunners that can defend every side of your bomber at the same time as it was in WW2? Come on, seriously.

it is more realistic to have another person or persons gunning for the pilot. ai is too accurate and dummying them down defeats your ideas of realism and survivability. it's bad enough that a person can sit in a bomber now and have the guns from 3 bombers firing at the same point at the same time. you have played this game long enough to see the effects of ai guns, try to imagine how unbalancing it would be to have 24 plane formations with all guns manned by ai that is more accurate than a human. i've seen a group of players flying bombers with ai gunners and i can tell you 18 planes with ai gunners all firing at you with pinpoint accuracy is an exercise in futility and is enough to keep you from attacking such a formation more than once.

Now that I think about it, there is another way to implement my idea without using large drone formations. A command that slaves any bomber to a lead aircraft and keeps all players in nice formations that leaves one pilot to worry about navigation and everyone else to defense.

I think it would be a great compromise but it still wouldn't be as good as using drones. Drones are a population multiplier that increases action/activity for everyone. There is no question other than what programming or server challenges it presents and I see little of either without a huge increase in subscriptions.

ya an option that would allow multiple players ro slave their bomber formations together would be very cool. how to keep them slaved when planes start getting shot down would be a programming issue. and what about the pilots that lose their entire formation, auto join another players planes as a gunner?

i think you over estimate the attraction of drones, especially in the numbers you're suggesting. they may look cool but when it comes to game play it's a different story. you're substituting players trying to work together in a coordinated effort for a horde of drones controlled by a single individual. the large formations your suggesting would require larger numbers of interceptors and if people can't coordinate enough to fly bombers in formations what are the odds of getting a bunch of people together so they can fly to 20000 feet and intercept a couple of large bomber formations before they close a base down or sink a cv group? with a 24 plane formation and ai gunners, it's a losing proposition for the typical 1 or 2 people to attack them...it would be a losing proposition for 10 people unless they are damn good and flying perk planes. it wouldn't take very long before most players all but ignored them, pretty much like they do now for bombers flying 30000 feet over a base. at that point for the defenders it's see what the bombers hit then try to hold off the attackers long enough for everything to pop again.



i'm sorry but, i think you're missing one of the more important aspects, the players. there are few people with the know how and/or patience to circle a base for 5 or 10 minutes waiting for drones to clear the runway. their first response will be to just fly off and see how many drones can warp to their position and form up. on the other hand, if larger formations were offered in the hangar as an option, those with the patience and know how would choose them for a run or 2. and those that don't have the know how or patience would opt for the smaller formations. and rather than ai gunners, if more than 1 person were allowed to join as a gunner for larger formations, that would offer more flexibility for those that want to be gunners.

on a side note, bombers didn't fly in formation all at the same altitude in a nice level line...and that aspect would have to be programmed for authenticity.

[muzik]

I don't have time for all these long posts so I'm going to stick to one subject at a time, accuracy for now.

ai is too accurate and dummying them down defeats your ideas of realism and survivability.

It doesn't defeat either of them. The survivability comes from the fact that there are 24 bombers and it's unlikely that all of them will be killed because if a single pilot is good enough to avoid getting shot, then he will run out of ammo.

The Realism comes from large formations and multi-sided defense for all players, not just guys who shoot like 999000.

you have played this game long enough to see the effects of ai guns, try to imagine how unbalancing it would be...

You forget why AI is as accurate as it is in game. They aren't modeled to match real life abilities, they are tweaked to provide a balance. If they didn't do it this way, then CVs would be useless targets destroyed by cartoon pilots that never would have lived long enough to achieve the skills they have in this game. Field and CV guns cannot be compared to 24 bomber crews.

more accurate than a human.

That is an extreme exaggeration and it doesn't have to be that way. AI is only as accurate as it is programmed to be.

i've seen a group of players flying bombers with ai gunners and i can tell you 18 planes with ai gunners all firing at you with pinpoint accuracy is an exercise in futility and is enough to keep you from attacking such a formation more than once.

Again you presume that AI gunners on these formations have to be modeled the same way puffy or field guns are. Besides the unrealistic and unjustified "pin point accuracy" you keep attaching to a completely different aspect of the game, you seem to be working from the assumption that any fighter pilot in AH should be able to destroy an entire formation of bombers with little risk of being hit. I don't. I think they should be lucky to kill 2 or 3 before their luck runs out. If there are only 3 in a formation, it's not much of a challenge.

What would you say the odds were of a single fighter diving into a formation of 17s or 24s and coming away without damage in ww2? I'm guessing the odds were pretty high against just as it should be in game.

[gyrene81]

field and cv ai guns as they exist now are more accurate than you're giving credit...get within the kill zone and you're getting pinged. the puffy ack isn't as accurate as the short range stuff, if you know how to fly in it. considering the number of guns on ships, that's about what you would see attacking a 24 plane formation of bombers with ai gunners. you never played warbirds did you? i did, same 3 plane box, same single pilot control...but ai gunners. the ai wasn't very accurate at 1000 yards, but get within 700 yards and it would shred you unless you were using some really good tactics and staying fast, even then you would get pinged on each pass. if they had dummied down the accuracy any further, the bombers would have been nothing more than cannon fodder.

with your large formation idea, in order to maintain balance, unless htc wanted to change things so that more than 1 person could join a formation as a gunner (maybe make each plane a gun position), then ai would be necessary. and in order for that ai to replace people, as well as keep those large formations from being little more than score padding cannon fodder, it would have to be at least as accurate as field and ship guns. and with that large of a formation and that amount of ai accuracy with so many guns, it would definitely take more than one attacker to make a dent. absolutely would make defending against strat runs interesting. just 2 people with those large formations could level a large airfield in a single pass. a group of 4 could level the strats in a single pass, can't imagine what a squad like the aks or pigs could do.

you're wanting 24 plane formations to be the default, and i'm saying it would not only make the learning curve for new players tougher, it would be cumbersome as well. it would also be unbalancing in general in the main arenas.

[muzik]

field and cv ai guns as they exist now are more accurate than you're giving credit

Not at all. I know very well how accurate they are. And if that is too accurate for you, all they have to do is reduce the accuracy for the large formations. That's exactly what I suspected in the first place.

After all, and I think this is what you are trying to get at and which I agree with, the player/pilot should bear much of the burden for surviving the flight by flying smart, not flying fearlessly into hordes because the AI gunners are so good. BUT, there has to be some balance. Flying into a formation like this should not be a walk in the park.

the ai wasn't very accurate at 1000 yards, but get within 700 yards and it would shred you unless you were using some really good tactics and staying fast

That's the way it should be. That's the way it is now with a good gunner. And don't forget, just because you are in range of one bomber doesn't mean all 24 of them are close enough to do any damage.

if they had dummied down the accuracy any further, the bombers would have been nothing more than cannon fodder.

I don't believe this. I'm sure they could have dropped it just a hair more without that much of a change. There are infinite numbers to adjust writing software codes.

in order for that ai to replace people, as well as keep those large formations from being little more than score padding cannon fodder, it would have to be at least as accurate as field and ship guns.

There is the bottom line right there. Is it REALLY so bad flying over fields now? If it were, then everyone would be screaming bloody murder on a regular basis. There is a balance with field guns the way they are. Dangerous enough to make you think twice and fly smart, yet forgiving enough that vultures get through on a regular basis. You hear more complaints about vultures than you do about field gun lethality. That is balance.

As far as score padding, there are other easy ways to inhibit that. It's not even an issue.

would make defending against strat runs interesting.

This is where other changes would come to play. Points for hitting strats may have to be given whether buildings are up or not. A new type of accumulative damage might be in order.

you're wanting 24 plane formations to be the default, and i'm saying it would not only make the learning curve for new players tougher, it would be cumbersome as well. it would also be unbalancing in general in the main arenas.

I never said that. Single bombers would still be available. Hell, I don't care if the 3 formation choice is still there also. It wouldn't make the learning curve harder. Just the fact that a newb is likely to MAKE IT to the target with something left to fly means he/she is more likely to be successful in the game before they give up and quit.

[gyrene81]

Not at all. I know very well how accurate they are. And if that is too accurate for you, all they have to do is reduce the accuracy for the large formations. That's exactly what I suspected in the first place.

After all, and I think this is what you are trying to get at and which I agree with, the player/pilot should bear much of the burden for surviving the flight by flying smart, not flying fearlessly into hordes because the AI gunners are so good. BUT, there has to be some balance. Flying into a formation like this should not be a walk in the park.

That's the way it should be. That's the way it is now with a good gunner. And don't forget, just because you are in range of one bomber doesn't mean all 24 of them are close enough to do any damage.

I don't believe this. I'm sure they could have dropped it just a hair more without that much of a change. There are infinite numbers to adjust writing software codes.

the way the auto guns are programmed, reducing the accuracy would make them all but useless except for very close, which in turn would make the bombers just as easy to shoot down as the 3 plane formations in ah. if i understand the coding properly it's based on object proximity detection. the system detects and enemy aircraft approaching and the auto guns start tracking it. once it gets to within x distance, the guns start firing in bursts until the target flies out of range and/or is shot down. trying to get too granular with the code by artificially mimicking human error is not practical. not to mention, lowering the accuracy defeats your idea of bomber survivability.

i can only think of 2 places within the current 3 plane bomber formations where only 1 gun can fire at you...and you have to be very close to the bomber. turning the 3 plane formation into a 24 plane formation of 8 boxes in the standard usaaf flying formation, there isn't any place you can get within that formation where at least 4 guns aren't firing at you.

There is the bottom line right there. Is it REALLY so bad flying over fields now? If it were, then everyone would be screaming bloody murder on a regular basis. There is a balance with field guns the way they are. Dangerous enough to make you think twice and fly smart, yet forgiving enough that vultures get through on a regular basis. You hear more complaints about vultures than you do about field gun lethality. That is balance.

people do complain about the field ack...a lot. they don't like getting dragged through it trying to shoot someone down, unless it's their own. a lot of times you can fly through it relatively uscathed by getting low to the ground until you're clear, but taking on 24 bombers with auto guns, you don't have many options. let's not forget, there aren't as many guns on a base as there will be with a 24 plane formation. it would be akin to trying to fly into and through a cv group, it can be done but not without at least losing parts.

This is where other changes would come to play. Points for hitting strats may have to be given whether buildings are up or not. A new type of accumulative damage might be in order.

i can see a lot of consequential problems with that line of thinking. to iron it out would require a "what if" checklist.



I n

ever said that. Single bombers would still be available. Hell, I don't care if the 3 formation choice is still there also. It wouldn't make the learning curve harder. Just the fact that a newb is likely to MAKE IT to the target with something left to fly means he/she is more likely to be successful in the game before they give up and quit.

ok, i'm curious as to how you would prevent just any johhny joystick from taking 24 planes every single time he upped bombers. and, maybe getting some of his mishun oriented horder buddies to grab their own 24 plane sets and leveling at least 1 airfield with the town in a single pass, while a couple more buddies fly drunks in. people think bases get rolled with hordes now, having big formations available to even noobs, adds more problems.
i'm saying keep the 3 plane formation as default and charge perk points for each additional 3 plane box they add to their flying flotilla. whether the ords are perked or not wouldn't make a difference.

how people get treated within the arenas and what aspect they find that makes it interesting to them has more to do with whether they stick around or quit than the number of times they get shot down. i'm not much of a bomber jockey, but i've flown a decent amount of bombing runs. and i've had 2 hour flying sessions prematurely ended before i could drop my ords by single fighters just hanging around at 25-30k looking for someone to shoot at. i just up more bombers and plan a different route, as do the more dedicated bomber jockeys.

[muzik]

the way the auto guns are programmed, reducing the accuracy would make them all but useless

You are imposing inaccurate and wide performance gaps on a digital world where there is an infinite range of adjustments. They would not be useless.

which in turn would make the bombers just as easy to shoot down as the 3 plane formations in ah.

Again, I don't want INVINCIBLE bombers. That's not realistic or healthy for the game.

lowering the accuracy defeats your idea of bomber survivability.

You're misunderstanding my expectations and misunderstanding the ability of programmers to fine tune the accuracy of the AI gunners. I don't want or expect every bomber to survive. They will survive based on the number of attackers and the intelligence/skill/tactics of the bomber pilot. If one formation of bombers gets attacked by 5 or 6 decent fighter pilots, then the bomber formation might be wiped out.

there isn't any place you can get within that formation where at least 4 guns aren't firing at you.

As it was in RL and as it should be in game.

people do complain about the field ack...a lot.

As it was in RL and as it should be in game. Are you suggesting now that field guns are too strong and we should make it easier to vultch fields? Field guns are well balanced now just like bomber formations could be.

i can see a lot of consequential problems with that line of thinking. to iron it out would require a "what if" checklist.

Absolutely. Give me a what if and we can see if there is a compromise.

ok, i'm curious as to how you would prevent just any johhny joystick from taking 24 planes every single time he upped bombers.

I'm not sure I would want to. The only reason to is if other changes to the game are off the board OR they can't be implemented right away.

IF you must prevent them from overwhelming the game at first, they could be perked in some way, but not per bomber as you suggested, but for the entire formation. Or they could be enabled by schedule once every hour and a half or two hours during a 15 or 20 minute window. But this should be a temporary measure until proper game changes discourage gamey behavior.

You should ask better questions.
  What incentives could you give bomber pilots to avoid carpet bombing bases and towns?
       High alt puffy ack
       More strat targets with better rewards for hitting them.
       Changing game rules so that it encourages strat bombing over base bombing.
       Different methods of tracking bombers so that they are easily intercepted (as it was in RL)

etc, etc

how people get treated within the arenas and what aspect they find that makes it interesting to them has more to do with whether they stick around or quit than the number of times they get shot down.

This is all debatable but it's certainly more interesting being in command of a 24 plane formation or attacking it than a 3 plane formation.


I see your points. I understand the things you want to avoid and I agree with some of them. What I don't agree with is how to do it. I don't think saying "no, because someone might not behave" is rational.

Game rules encourage and discourage behaviors to create challenges. Find the right rules and incentives and you will create the circumstances that give you the game you want. Blaming players for doing what they want to do when there is nothing in the rules or game structure that discourages it is ridiculous. Change the game. Don't reject good ideas because of bad behavior.

[gyrene81]

IF you must prevent them from overwhelming the game at first, they could be perked in some way, but not per bomber as you suggested, but for the entire formation. Or they could be enabled by schedule once every hour and a half or two hours during a 15 or 20 minute window. But this should be a temporary measure until proper game changes discourage gamey behavior.

Game rules encourage and discourage behaviors to create challenges. Find the right rules and incentives and you will create the circumstances that give you the game you want. Blaming players for doing what they want to do when there is nothing in the rules or game structure that discourages it is ridiculous. Change the game. Don't reject good ideas because of bad behavior.

sorry man, i'm more pessimistic when it comes to human behavior, especially in the virtual world of games. if there is a loophole, it will be exploited. would large formations be nice? sure, but not for free so that a group of 3 or 4 guys can level a base with a single pass and have it captured before anyone can say "alert". if the perk costs were per 3 plane box, and the bomb dispersal throughout the formation changed to be more of a carpet effect rather than everything hits within a 50 yard radius, that would keep most of the headaches down. then all you have to do is address the 2000ft b24lancstuka dive bombers from carpet bombing a tank fight...

You are imposing inaccurate and wide performance gaps on a digital world where there is an infinite range of adjustments. They would not be useless.

Again, I don't want INVINCIBLE bombers. That's not realistic or healthy for the game.

You're misunderstanding my expectations and misunderstanding the ability of programmers to fine tune the accuracy of the AI gunners. I don't want or expect every bomber to survive. They will survive based on the number of attackers and the intelligence/skill/tactics of the bomber pilot. If one formation of bombers gets attacked by 5 or 6 decent fighter pilots, then the bomber formation might be wiped out.

adjustments aren't as flexibile as you think, the ai cannot be effectively programmed with a little code to mimic human error. they have to use object proximity detection and tracking. as i stated in my previous example, the ai guns were not very effective at 1000 yards (not including the occasional golden bb) but, get within 600 yards and they were deadly. it was a decent balance that made the bombers just challenging enough to keep people interested in not only attacking bomber formations, but also flying bombers. that is as accurate as should be expected, going below that level of accuracy would make them all but useless because fighter guns can be effective further out.

As it was in RL and as it should be in game. Are you suggesting now that field guns are too strong and we should make it easier to vultch fields? Field guns are well balanced now just like bomber formations could be.

no, i'm not. my reply was directed to your assertion that few people complain about field ack. personally in some instances i think field ack should be a lot more effective.

Absolutely. Give me a what if and we can see if there is a compromise.

what would be the plan to prevent a group from rolling undefended bases in less time than it takes to kill a cv...every single day. keep in mind what it takes for a chess piece to win the war.

what is to stop a squad from making strat runs part of their squad night and leveling strats and hq in 1 run? with 96 bombers, it could be done fairly easily, and hardening the objects to make them tougher to drop is not an answer.

what's to stop every johnny joystick from upping 24 plane formations over tank fights, the way people do now with 3 plane formations? there is enough whining about the lack of tank fights now, ruin the fun with a bunch of 24 plane lancstukas and see what happens.

it's not that difficult to kill a cv with a level bomber, how much more effective would a 24 plane formation be, even without the accuracy the existing 3 plane formation has...


my answer to all would be perk costs...the more 3 plane boxes you choose to take up, the more each box costs.

You should ask better questions.
  What incentives could you give bomber pilots to avoid carpet bombing bases and towns?
       High alt puffy ack
       More strat targets with better rewards for hitting them.
       Changing game rules so that it encourages strat bombing over base bombing.
       Different methods of tracking bombers so that they are easily intercepted (as it was in RL)

etc, etc

we already know puffy ack is less effective on bombers than it is on fighters. and increasing the effectiveness would be counter productive to increasing the size of bomber formations.

changing the strat value would definitely be a good thing, even without the bigger formations.

the object in the main arenas is to win the war, and you do that by taking bases, strats play a lesser role as they should. making bases less of a factor will do nothing but bring frustration to the masses. as per your wish, making the bombers more survivable with larger formations and ai gunners, along with increasing the value of the strats, will be as much encouragement as needed. there aren't many toon bomber pile-its that have the patience for a 2.5 hour 30k foot bomb run.

tracking bombers is easy now, making it easier would be counter productive.

[Arlo]

Though I'm pretty much in agreement with Gyrene, I gotta say I appreciate both the civility
and logical point vs counter-point in this discussion. Thanks, guys. 

[DubiousKB]

Great thinking points guys...

I like the idea of large bomber formations. It's always been more fun for a noob player such as myself to be amidst a group of buffs as I felt safer and I had help from other players.

I'm not certain on which approach is better for the game. Increasing single formation numbers, or that ability to group buffs 3-4 players into a single flying formation using dot commands to latch to a lead player.   As fun as it would to see the 24 bufffs in my own formation, defending it myself would be difficult and allowing others (gunner/observers/ OR A.I.) to defend me would make the attacking very difficult. As with any game, balance must be striven for.

   Great Discussion!

[Arlo]

Great thinking points guys...

I like the idea of large bomber formations. <snip>.... using dot commands to latch to a lead player.

Wouldn't it be even more realistic if instead of a dot command the other players had to physically
maintain formation on the lead then drop their bombs when a verbal command to 'drop' was given?

[DubiousKB]

Wouldn't it be even more realistic if instead of a dot command the other players had to physically
maintain formation on the lead then drop their bombs when a verbal command to 'drop' was given?

It would. I agree. I would love to get in with some guys and attempt this, but I rarely find them. Perhaps I am not in an active enough squad etc. but I like the idea of large buff formations.   

I am uncertain as to what the best way to achieve that is. Do i just wait patiently for others of like mind to create a mission? 

Think about the latching command, wouldn't this be a relatively easy way to "form up" with others who may not have upped from the same base as you... I am beat up with both drones gone, but there's another set of friendly buffs which I can "latch to" for safety on the return trip home.... Those buffs not going home? "un-latch" when clear of danger area.... Lead pilot is just that, a pilot and lead bomber.

I'm not really sure Arlo, just really like the idea's being thrown around here.

[Arlo]

I'm not really sure Arlo, just really like the idea's being thrown around here.

I understand. I am, too. I'm willing to mull it over. But, currently, I'm of the mind that this isn't
all that different from a one-person mega-drone formation. It's just being formed up by more
than one person, initially. Technically speaking, once it's formed, couldn't the other player(s) turn
on a movie to watch or go make a beer run ... and still enjoy the protection of the player(s) still
actively in the game?

[DubiousKB]

I understand. I am, too. I'm willing to mull it over. But, currently, I'm of the mind that this isn't
all that different from a one-person mega-drone formation. It's just being formed up by more
than one person, initially. Technically speaking, once it's formed, couldn't the other player(s) turn
on a movie to watch or go make a beer run ... and still enjoy the protection of the player(s) still
actively in the game?

That's where the balance would come in, it couldn't be so "easy" that people are walking away from their computers... I go afk when climbing out in buffs (go for a smoke, take the animal for a squirt, grab food, etc), as Im' sure others do too...  In this case though, we wouldn't want a squad leader taking his squad of B-29's all the way to target only, to "text/call" his buddies to become "active".... In that situation though, i'm assuming no AI gunnery... So the overall formation is only as strong as it's number of active pilot's/gunners...   I'm assuming 1 additional gunner observer rule still applies.

Latching command only works when within 200-400, and Auto-pilot will match lead formations moves so long as the attached formation is capable (think weight, missing parts, etc....  So i suppose it's double sided, if you're willing to latch to someone and go afk... You'd better not get upset at your lead formation for not "protecting you" when you come back to a tower screen.... Arlo, waddya think? 

[Arlo]

That's where the balance would come in, it couldn't be so "easy" that people are walking away from their computers... I go afk when climbing out in buffs (go for a smoke, take the animal for a squirt, grab food, etc), as Im' sure others do too...  In this case though, we wouldn't want a squad leader taking his squad of B-29's all the way to target only, to "text/call" his buddies to become "active".... In that situation though, i'm assuming no AI gunnery... So the overall formation is only as strong as it's number of active pilot's/gunners...   I'm assuming 1 additional gunner observer rule still applies.

Latching command only works when within 200-400, and Auto-pilot will match lead formations moves so long as the attached formation is capable (think weight, missing parts, etc....  So i suppose it's double sided, if you're willing to latch to someone and go afk... You'd better not get upset at your lead formation for not "protecting you" when you come back to a tower screen.... Arlo, waddya think? 

Well, I dunno. I'm one of those silly players that take pride in my ability to fly in formation, whether it be fighters or buffs. But a strat run is long as hades and probably should be an aluminum overcast type of mission. And I've reached the age of frequent runs to the head. Formation for flight purposes only? Why not. But each formation player still drops their own bombs (whether through calibrated drop of lead bombardier call).

Additionally .... what if the lead pilot needs to go urinate or something? Switching who has lead may be called for. 

[DubiousKB]

Well, I dunno. I'm one of those silly players that take pride in my ability to fly in formation, whether it be fighters or buffs. But a strat run is long as hades and probably should be an aluminum overcast type of mission. And I've reached the age of frequent runs to the head. Formation for flight purposes only? Why not. But each formation player still drops their own bombs (whether through calibrated drop of lead bombardier call).

Additionally .... what if the lead pilot needs to go urinate or something? Switching who has lead may be called for. 

I'm with ya! (on the formation flying challenge and it's feel good rewards, not the frequent urinating thing... ) As well as the lead bombadier not having control over the rest of the buffs in formation...

I want to stay away from the 24 plane formation being controlled by a single player, but rather make it easier for grouped buffs to stick together to target, and after. We've all seen the nice formation over target dissipate after bombs dropped because each pilot egresses a different way.

For me a buff mission is nice and slack on takeoff, even more boring climbing out to target alt, bland setting nose on target, then it's a disgusting flurry of activity for the 2min leading up to bomb drop, and even worse right after.  If I don't have to worry about what each crew member is doing simultaneously at bomb drop, I think it'd be a more enjoyable activity overall.

At any rate, i think the simple dot command to maintain formation with another player is not a bad thing... Certainly doesn't mean you can't fly in formation actively, just gives you the option to turn it over to your pilot when you're not representing him (in gunner of bomber seat). The coding would have to be very loose so that if conditions exist where your formation cannot maintain a set distance from lead buff, the "tether" is effectively broken and a message to player is presented: Formation Broken: Auto-Pilot engaged.