bomber formations

[Arlo]

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.

Ok, I'm with you on this.

[Nathan60]

you do realize if formations are increased in number the amount of ords needed to drop any object is going to increase as well...just like asking for the ability to carry more troops.

nice concept...might happen when the nuke is introduced.

It would fix the pony bomb truck problem

[muzik]

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?

No, because in real life, the pilot didn't jump from gun to gun to bombardier position to...

There are too many chores for one person.

If we had AI gunners, then I might say make them fly in formation.

But then I want a more realistic experience and perhaps a new challenge and I wont get that if I wait for the dweeblets in this game to learn how to fly a decent bomber formation.

I would never get to attack a large, tight formation of bombers and most bomber pilots will rarely if ever experience being part of one. I have yet to even see a well coordinated formation of bombers in this game. Maybe one or two formations will stay close while stragglers are scattered all around.

It's an experience worth modeling in the game because it is the epitome of the air war in WW2. It's an image almost everyone in the world could tell you about the war regardless of how uneducated or aeronautically challenged they are. You could go to the deepest jungles of Africa and ask a shirtless tribal woman with a lip hanging down to her nipples what she knows about ww2 and she'd recite the daylight bombing strategy. 

[MK-84]

Perhaps a very crude (on purpose) autopilot for multiple formations so that when it does come time to jump to the guns the bombers don't all break formation from one another?

[muzik]

sorry man, i'm more pessimistic when it comes to human behavior,

Understandable, I agree with the need to prevent retarded, gamey behavior, but the way to do it is to create the things you want and address the downsides as they come up if you haven't already fixed them from the get go.

and the bomb dispersal throughout the formation changed to be more of a carpet effect rather than everything hits within a 50 yard radius,

Not sure what you are talking about here. I've flown low level formations and seen bomb drops hit relative to the plane they came from in a carpet affect. I always thought the hits looked closer from high alt because of the distance. I could be wrong.

then all you have to do is address the 2000ft b24lancstuka dive bombers from carpet bombing a tank fight...

 Done. Bombs don't release below 10 - 15k AGL.  Heavy bombers were primarily high alt attackers, no reason they should be allowed to do otherwise here. The only exceptions could be with single bombers/no formations.

adjustments aren't as flexibile as you think,

I still don't believe this, but even if you are right, I think the field guns are just about as perfectly balanced as you can get and if that is what AI guns on bombers would turn out to be, I'm all for it. Besides you might not have considered that bombers are firing much smaller rounds than field guns when you suggested that the same accuracy from AI gunners on 24 bombers would be too much.

what would be the plan to prevent a group from rolling undefended bases

This could be a variety of things. Like I said before I would prefer seeing some serious changes to the game which would include doing away with blowing up buildings to shut down a field or capture a town.

One way might seem odd but making large formations ineffective on bases and towns. Bombs would hit, but no damage to the structures.

Take away all points for these targets. Increase points for strats. Develop more strats that provide a way for bombers to contribute to the war since you are taking away the only significant contribution they can make.

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.

I don't understand why hardening objects is off the table, but as I said, I don't care for the 'blow buildings up for effect' aspect of the game. I would suggest making the city 'grounds' the object. Bombers would have to repeatedly hit the city. Every hit results in points for the pilot and decreases the pre-determined value of the strat to affect the war. This would simulate a demoralizing effect on the population and the handicapping of infrastructure and productivity.

Take away the incentives. Create better incentives. Make rail yards that affect base supply. Add industrial targets like we had in AW. The possibilities are there.

what's to stop every johnny joystick from upping 24 plane formations over tank fights,

10 - 15k AGL drop restriction. That and any single hit of a friendly GV should result in complete destruction of the formation via kill-shooter. This could be because bombing enemy GVs could be considered a valid tactic but not if it's done in a careless gamey way.

I completely agree this is a gamey act and I'm all for penalties for players that do it. Perhaps a form of punishment can be instituted that prevents offending pilots from flying bombers for 2 weeks. Anything that discourages gamey behavior. But I believe Htc doesn't really care and aren't interested in preventing these kinds of things or they would have done something about it a long time ago.

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...

Make them ineffective on ships. I don't think it was too common to use large formations to carpet bomb ships, so I don't think it should be allowed here. Even for 3 bombers.

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

The perk system has been good at its job to now, but I don't believe in it all that much. I think there are better ways.

If people spend all their perks adding a set or two of bombers then how often would we actually see what I propose? I want to see the full formations. I wan't to see extra targets during off peak hours and I want to see a new aspect of the game. I don't want this to be a rare occasion. It should be a regular part of the war and if you give it a reason to exist and remove the incentives to use them in the gamey ways, it wont cause the problems you see. I grant you that there will likely be unforeseen consequences, but we should either figure out what they are now or deal with them as they come up?

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.

Again, I don't expect every bomber to come home. There should be risk and losses at every target. I don't know what the average losses of bombers were due to flack alone. If the average was 10% then I think that might be pretty close to what would happen if 24 flew through puffy we have now. 2 or 3 lost drones would be about 10%.

strats play a lesser role as they should.

I don't agree. I think that considering the historical use of bombers, air bases and towns as primary targets for bombers is gamey. It was a simple basic war format that worked great for old PC computing power and hard drive space, but is way out dated and under developed for current technology. I think the strats should be more complex and have more affect on the war.

making bases less of a factor will do nothing but bring frustration to the masses.

Why? If you take away the best way for bomber pilots to contribute to the game, then yes they will be frustrated. Create better incentives and contributions then I believe they will enjoy the game more.

there aren't many toon bomber pile-its that have the patience for a 2.5 hour 30k foot bomb run.

I agree, which is why the strat system needs changed. One city deep in enemy territory should not be the only target they have available to them.

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

Yes and no. It's hard to say exactly how this idea will play out. But as it was in RL, the enemy always had time to mount a defense. They knew the bombers were on the way because of spotters or radar.

At first buff hunters will go on feeding frenzy. Some of that will wear off. How much warning and information should be given would have to be adjusted accordingly.

[gyrene81]

Muzik, i fear that the basis of your idea is entrenched in the strategies of the 8th af strategic bombing of europe. and that you wish to extend that ideology to the limited world in aces high. it wasn't that way in every theater of ops, especially with countries other than the u.s. and britain.

if it were up to me, large formations would be doable...but not without cost. i would use an incremental perk cost system, the more 3 plane boxes you choose in the hangar, the higher the cost of each subsequent box. say, b17g's...default 3 plane box, no cost. add a 3 plane box at a cost of 50 bomber perks, add another for a cost of 100 bomber perks, and so on until you reach the maximum of 8 sets. that would allow much flexibility to people who wish to make bombing runs. on the down side, it could cause more people to look for ways to farm perk points for bombers.

Not sure what you are talking about here. I've flown low level formations and seen bomb drops hit relative to the plane they came from in a carpet affect. I always thought the hits looked closer from high alt because of the distance. I could be wrong.

there is no actual bomb dispersal pattern as there would be in reality. if you set salvo to 1, and make a drop from say 2000 feet, the bombs from all 3 planes land within something like 150 feet of each other. go to 10,000 feet and the bombs will hit hit closer to each other, rinse, repeat up to 30,000 feet and you can watch the bombs hit within the circle of a field gun emplacement, where they should be farther apart. i know why it's done the way it is and i have no problem with it. however, if the same metrics were to be applied to 24 plane formations, you could have 8 bombs landing within the space of a vehicle hangar from 20,000 feet up when the impact zone should be the size of at least a bomber hangar. i can think of a few ways to prevent that from being the case but, i'm one of the people who would like the flexibility to change the shape of the formations.

Done. Bombs don't release below 10 - 15k AGL.  Heavy bombers were primarily high alt attackers, no reason they should be allowed to do otherwise here. The only exceptions could be with single bombers/no formations.

10 - 15k AGL drop restriction. That and any single hit of a friendly GV should result in complete destruction of the formation via kill-shooter. This could be because bombing enemy GVs could be considered a valid tactic but not if it's done in a careless gamey way.

those would be a preposterous ways to stop low level carpet bombing. if the drop pattern was changed from its current state, it wouldn't be possible to get all those bombs into a small area. i'm pretty sure low level carpet bombing would only be a problem until people ran out of perks. for fighters, it's a target rich opportunity to get some kills. for tankers who would be the victims of low level carpet bombing, simple fix, don't spawn camp and keep moving.

I still don't believe this, but even if you are right, I think the field guns are just about as perfectly balanced as you can get and if that is what AI guns on bombers would turn out to be, I'm all for it. Besides you might not have considered that bombers are firing much smaller rounds than field guns when you suggested that the same accuracy from AI gunners on 24 bombers would be too much.

i don't have a problem with the field guns or the ship guns...they are what they are. if they were any easier to get through they may as well change the name of the game to mario brothers. if auto guns were introduced to bombers, then having their accuracy increase based on proximity would be the way to go. that is just about the closest you can get to human factor without some elaborate programming.

[gyrene81]

This could be a variety of things. Like I said before I would prefer seeing some serious changes to the game which would include doing away with blowing up buildings to shut down a field or capture a town.

One way might seem odd but making large formations ineffective on bases and towns. Bombs would hit, but no damage to the structures.

Take away all points for these targets. Increase points for strats. Develop more strats that provide a way for bombers to contribute to the war since you are taking away the only significant contribution they can make.

I don't understand why hardening objects is off the table, but as I said, I don't care for the 'blow buildings up for effect' aspect of the game. I would suggest making the city 'grounds' the object. Bombers would have to repeatedly hit the city. Every hit results in points for the pilot and decreases the pre-determined value of the strat to affect the war. This would simulate a demoralizing effect on the population and the handicapping of infrastructure and productivity.

Take away the incentives. Create better incentives. Make rail yards that affect base supply. Add industrial targets like we had in AW. The possibilities are there.

why would you even consider removing the primary reasons for combat in the game and turn it into something like a glorified bomber command game? if shutting down bases were removed what is there to promote fighting? it's the base captures that keep the fight going. granted it's also the cause of many things people complain about but without them being a factor, it's nothing but horde furball city. hardening the objects would eliminate the ability to use many of the fighters, and why would we want to do that? without removing the importance of air bases (since this is an air combat simulator) in the grand scheme of winning the war, maybe, just maybe eliminating ground vehicle bases and making the towns where gv's are based, then incorporating a more intricate supply system involving the towns and the strats, and expanding the strat system to have more of an impact on the war effort with multiple city/depots rather what exists now. consider if every chess piece country had 4 or 5 major cities that could be targeted, as well as strategic supply lines and supply depots that could be targeted, how much more of a bombing campaign would that create without removing the front line war aspects that exist now?
while you're mulling over ideas on how to "improve" things, please do not overlook what is part and parcel of the appeal of aces high, the variety of action available to those who choose to explore it. turning it into all strategic bomber command where the only way to win the war is through massive bombing attacks and attrition will produce a graveyard of activity.

I completely agree this is a gamey act and I'm all for penalties for players that do it. Perhaps a form of punishment can be instituted that prevents offending pilots from flying bombers for 2 weeks. Anything that discourages gamey behavior. But I believe Htc doesn't really care and aren't interested in preventing these kinds of things or they would have done something about it a long time ago.

that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. that sort of a punishment can result in the loss of paying customers very easily. there are better ways but, if changes in other aspects were made to keep such behavior from being effective, then the occurrences will decrease.

The perk system has been good at its job to now, but I don't believe in it all that much. I think there are better ways.

i'm curious...but that's for another discussion.

If people spend all their perks adding a set or two of bombers then how often would we actually see what I propose? I want to see the full formations. I wan't to see extra targets during off peak hours and I want to see a new aspect of the game. I don't want this to be a rare occasion. It should be a regular part of the war and if you give it a reason to exist and remove the incentives to use them in the gamey ways, it wont cause the problems you see. I grant you that there will likely be unforeseen consequences, but we should either figure out what they are now or deal with them as they come up?

bombers are just one of many aspects of the game. the penalties you suggest are not for the video game world. if you really want to see full formations, get a bomber squad together and run missions, that is the only 100% way to get what you personally want 100% of the time. people are always building up their bomber perks, so i seriously doubt there would be a shortage of 24 plane formations even after the gamey retards burn theirs up with their antics. for every 5000 foot lancstuka run there are 5 or 6 making 15,000+ foot bombing runs that are successful.

I don't agree. I think that considering the historical use of bombers, air bases and towns as primary targets for bombers is gamey. It was a simple basic war format that worked great for old PC computing power and hard drive space, but is way out dated and under developed for current technology. I think the strats should be more complex and have more affect on the war.

Why? If you take away the best way for bomber pilots to contribute to the game, then yes they will be frustrated. Create better incentives and contributions then I believe they will enjoy the game more.

i'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this but, you're wrong. the same principles are still incorporated outside of aces high. there is an overall objective, win the war. there are tasks to be completed in order to win the war, destroy something or take it over for your use. if this were an mmo first person shooter, there would be something else to destroy and or take over. battle lines would be defined and fluctuating based on the success/failure of meeting the objectives. in aces high where there are 3 sides, the air bases are the front lines, and possessing them determines who wins the war. the importance of strats should be nothing more than preventing the enemy from being able to wage war against you effectively or at all. destroy an ack factory and the ack gun supply line becomes ineffective. with the factory and supply line down, any ack guns that are destroyed on a base cannot be respawned until the factory is back on line. same principle for all other objects. but if the strats were expanded to include building materials, bombs, vehicles etc...then there are the incentives for bombing raids on strats.

[muzik]

Muzik, i fear that the basis of your idea is entrenched in the strategies of the 8th af strategic bombing of europe. and that you wish to extend that ideology to the limited world in aces high. it wasn't that way in every theater of ops, especially with countries other than the u.s. and britain.

You are right, it is the basis, but it doesn't matter what theaters it wasn't in, half the things we have in game were limited to one theater or another. Most glaring being Pacific theater combatants fighting ETO combatants. I'm not trying to suggest an exact duplicate of the air war in Europe, just a more epic experience.

i would use an incremental perk cost system...

...on the down side, it could cause more people to look for ways to farm perk points for bombers.

Safe to say we wont agree on this. But why do you propose continuing to support a system that people abuse as you say? I think there are better ways. Plus as I said before, your method potentially reduces the bomber formations to the likes of me163s or B29s (because I've heard they've become a bit rare).

I don't want them to be a rare instance in the game. As I said before they have to potential to be a population modifier that improves the game play during non peak hours. In addition bomber pilots seemingly take a back seat to fighter pilots already, when they are an important aspect of the game. There should be more value placed on their participation which means giving them a richer experience and by extension fighter pilots as well.

there is no actual bomb dispersal pattern as there would be in reality.

I'll take your word for it. So then you are correct, bomb dispersal should be modeled.

those would be a preposterous ways to stop low level carpet bombing.

I don't agree. Heavy bombers forte was not low level bombing. Smaller faster bombers were more likely to perform those missions but this sacrificed payload. I see no reason heavies should be used in this gamey way but if the rest of the population is cool with it, then so am I.

if the drop pattern was changed from its current state, it wouldn't be possible to get all those bombs into a small area. i'm pretty sure low level carpet bombing would only be a problem until people ran out of perks. for fighters, it's a target rich opportunity to get some kills. for tankers who would be the victims of low level carpet bombing, simple fix, don't spawn camp and keep moving.

That's great, except for the perk cost part. If everyone is cool with large formations making low level scorched earth passes, then I'm cool with it too. I don't GV that much anyhow.

why would you even consider removing the primary reasons for combat in the game and turn it into something like a glorified bomber command game?

You misunderstand, I don't suggest ending base taking or combat in towns and especially anything that reduced the ground war. The comment was an "if the game could be changed" then find different ways to facilitate base capture.  I have ideas, but I don't want to get sidetracked. All I'm saying is give bombers more incentive to do other things than wipe out bases or towns.

that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. that sort of a punishment can result in the loss of paying customers very easily. there are better ways but, if changes in other aspects were made to keep such behavior from being effective, then the occurrences will decrease.

You're right. I wasn't suggesting that I had the perfect solution, it was just a thought. Punishments can be used. Muting!!! The amount of time you can keep the kid in his room is the deciding factor. But as you said, make the right changes and occurrences will decrease.

hardening the objects would eliminate the ability to use many of the fighters

Which is why I suggested making the grounds the target, not the buildings. But that doesn't mean that buildings can't be made a little harder. It was just one possible option which could be used in conjunction with other measures affect the same change.

maybe, just maybe eliminating ground vehicle bases and making the towns where gv's are based, then incorporating a more intricate supply system involving the towns and the strats, and expanding the strat system to have more of an impact on the war effort with multiple city/depots rather what exists now. consider if every chess piece country had 4 or 5 major cities that could be targeted, as well as strategic supply lines and supply depots that could be targeted, how much more of a bombing campaign would that create without removing the front line war aspects that exist now?

I see you're starting to picture the kinds of modifications I envision. That's great, but I'm sure you'll agree that all of these changes couldn't be made simultaneously. If formations were introduced, we would have to accept some down falls until development progresses.

if you really want to see full formations, get a bomber squad together and run missions, that is the only 100% way to get what you personally want 100% of the time.

I don't fly bombers and even if I did, I still wouldn't see what I am suggesting here. It's easier to stay in formation in real life than in a sim, you have no peripheral vision. So I don't blame anyone, it's just an unrealistic expectation for a pilot who doesn't just have a single job of flying his aircraft.

i seriously doubt there would be a shortage of 24 plane formations even after the gamey retards burn theirs up with their antics. for every 5000 foot lancstuka run there are 5 or 6 making 15,000+ foot bombing runs that are successful.

Well that's good to know. Then we don't need to make a lot of concessions or changes.

i'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this but, you're wrong. the same principles are still incorporated outside of aces high. 

About what? bombing civilian populations? No. It was done, but it wasn't a strategic target, it was for psychological effect with a lot of revenge thrown in. If you want to allow it in game, then allow the towns to be hit repeatedly with full points for hits and as a representation of demoralization efforts. That is a valid target for bomber pilots, but it conflicts with the current method of capturing bases, hence my suggestion to change the base capture protocols.

Taking airfields? It's still done, but when trying to take an airfield to use, you don't destroy all of it's facilities. And in WW2, bases were carpet bombed on occasion. It wasn't rare but it wasn't the ideal tactic so it was avoided depending on the circumstances. Anyhow, my point was that blowing up buildings is a poor representation of strategic combat and it should be changed a bit.

if the strats were expanded to include building materials, bombs, vehicles etc...then there are the incentives for bombing raids on strats.

I like it. 

[gyrene81]

you're really over estimating the appeal that large bomber formations would have on prospective players much less the existing players, as much as saying people come in looking to use tanks. i'm willing to bet good money that +/- 1 percent were looking at the bombers when they got here, the rest wanted to be ace fighter jockeys. that's just the nature of the flight sim afficionado. there are various reasons players turn to primarily using bombers more than the rest of the population, physical issues, computer issues, internet connection issues. adding large bomber formations wouldn't garner a noticeable increase in subscribers and allowing unbridled access would be detrimental to the game.

i really believe the appeal of just having access to large bomber formations with auto guns that would increase survivability along with giving them higher value targets (like an enhanced strat system) will be enough incentive for more people to make more bombing runs and be successful rather than suicidal. with some exceptions (the darwin awardees that exist anyway) if it costs players to choose large formations, and the benefits are increased survivability as well as higher rewards for being successful, they will be less likely to bomb and bail, or run low alt suicide runs. the b-29s are rarely wasted on front line battles for bases where most of the action is because the reward is negligible compared to the risk. that is reason enough to see so few of them flying now. nobody wants to risk 300+ bomber perks to anything but higher value targets with better rewards. and the existing strat system isn't reward enough to take the trip very often.

the perk point system works for what is supposed to do. modifying it to address something like large bomber formations will enhance it's usefulness. the perk system is also an effective control system to prevent over use of certain things because people can't control themselves. i'm having difficulty understanding why you would oppose it or consider there is a better control method, and there has to be a control in place.

if you want more epic experiences it would be better to start by petitioning for a strat system that is more in depth than what exists now. targetable supply lines, supply depots, and associated factories that are tied together and can affect the ability for a country to fight the others would be a good start. it's pretty safe to say the current system is lacking in more ways than one. with a better strat system, you will see higher numbers of bombers being used. then add your idea for large formations.

i'm having some difficulty grasping the idea of hardening buildings to make them more difficult to destroy and making the ground they're on more valuable as a target than the buildings themselves. just doesn't make sense. hard targets such as buildings and structures, rail yards, trains, aircraft and vehicles are always the primary targets. by destroying those objects you affect the ability for the enemy to wage war against you. hitting those targets requires some effort to be precise. whereas blowing holes in the ground is a lot easier to do and doesn't do anything but make holes in the ground. even the bombing campaign to demoralize the civilian population called for hitting buildings, not the streets or surrounding grounds. the fact that things other than buildings and structures were hit was more a matter of human error than intent. hardening the buildings and structures would have more adverse effects than i think you're seeing.



as for flying in formation, when i was in a squad, we practiced flying in formations. the goal was to try and stay within 100 feet of each other and required some work to accomplish. i've seen other squads flying bombers and fighters in formations both in the main arenas and special events. it can be done fairly easily.

[muzik]

I'm not overestimating. I don't believe that this idea will draw new subscriptions in droves, but it will help to set AH further apart.

People buy with their eyes. This is in part eye candy. If I am new to flight sims and I start comparing a game like IL2 to AH it will be a tough choice. They both have strong points IL2 might just have more strong points, AHs big one is the potential arena population. Large formations would be an attention getter. Most guys won't even get into the strat aspects of the game for a year while they get beat up trying to learn to fly and fight. Strats are an out of sight, out of mind aspect of the game.

This idea is also practical for the reasons I've already stated. It just makes sense that the most iconic image of the war should be seen regularly in AH.

I agree that most guys come in here with their (stay with me here because I'm using your own statement to prove my point) EYES ON FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. They want to be fighter jocks. If they are uneducated about the realities of air combat they will probably come in and try to re-enact common themes found in media...escorting bombers, attacking bombers, fighter sweeps without ever giving thought to how little they know about air combat.

No matter how you look at it, this feature will enhance their first impression of the game. It will give them any of those experiences they chose. Too much regulation of this feature would be a mistake. Not enough would be a problem only if every means was exhausted in the effort to steer troublemakers in the right direction.

You make plenty of good points on why/how to keep players behavior in check. Your point on bomb and bails brought up another idea. Back to the punishment. Any player who bails out of a large formation doesn't get a new one that day. Maybe two days. It's a silly practice and it makes perfect sense to say 'if you throw it away, you lose it.' Would a commander in ww2 be given another command if he blew off his responsibility to his unit?

 Even after a sortie where drones were lost, those drones will be replenished 1 every half hour simulating resupply problems.

The perk system only benefits vets who know how to manipulate it. Green newbs are punished for lack of skill the way the perk system works. They don't even have the benefit of a few free perks as a result of joining. I'm not opposed to using the perk system to regulate this idea. Never have been, just weary of over-regulation at the expense of the fun.

The 'strat grounds v building destruction' stems from oddities that I noticed long ago. All pilots in the war were rewarded, in a manner of speaking, for completing missions. Coming home alive was praise worthy. If they destroyed a hard target they might get a little more praise, but all who participated got it regardless if their bombs hit the target.

The pinpoint accuracy of the current system is ridiculous and buildings can only be blown up once leaving nothing for other players to hit when in RL bombers at the rear of the group got just as much credit as the leads.

Making the ground the target eliminates the need to hit buildings to get credit for a sortie and allows many players to get credit for hitting strats, not just the lucky first ones. It also creates a way to attach huge values to the "target area" so that the target can be repeatedly hit giving credit to multiple players. It creates a need/demand for numerous bombing runs to strats while taking the focus off of fighter bases and towns.

The act of hitting the ground is a concession to playability. We don't have the vast number of useful targets to provide entertainment and a purpose to bomber pilots.

In RL, we still bombed, bombed out cities. The demoralization didn't stop just because much of the target was gone. We kept hitting them, hence bombed out targets still make valid targets. Buildings weren't necessarily the 'target' in the war, morale was the target, buildings only served as a land mark. I know how that sounds but it is the truth. We could care less if they had no place to live or not, we wanted to destroy their will to fight and we bombed them whether they were living in a sturdy home or a bombed out shell of a structure. You got it backwards, hitting a home was inconsequential to the mission even if it provided much of the demoralization. If half of them were left standing, it meant nothing, they got the message.

Trains and buildings weren't the only targets at rail yards. The tracks themselves, which might consist of acres and acres of tracks and come abouts, were also targets. You might as well say the ground here was a target.

Obviously factories and refineries were a different story. The structures needed to be rendered useless otherwise production might go on, but for our purposes it doesn't really matter. We need targets that can provide entertainment and by 'pretending' that they are still valid targets and hitting the ground until a predetermined value has been reached we can accomplish this. It's a means to an end.

I don't like overly modeled buildings. I don't want them at all, I only suggest this method because of the tendency of ideas being rejected if they don't revolve around using the same old system instead of trying new methods. I certainly agree that hardening structures that fighter/bombers might use is a bad thing. I think normal modeling and dirt as the target is the best way to go for strats. As for bases and towns, I would like to see them get away from using this method there too.

Flying formation is not that easy. It's rarely done well if it is done and I have never seen a large well coordinated formation in AH.....ever. Plenty of people try it, but it never lasts more than a few minutes.

[asterix]

My thoughts, sorry for the multiple quotes:

Large bomber formations
Replacing real players with drones and increasing the take off time seems like a bad idea. Many do not fly the buffs as it is because of the long flight time. Many seek player vs player experience in online games. One could attack large buff formations in offline as well. Experience would be the same.

AI gunners for the formation.
Again player is being replaced by the AI and personally I do not like it. Gunning from one position instead of all the guns is more realistic, but also means less player vs player skill.

Complaints that the recent wind changes make bombing too difficult.
The complaints I've seen about bombing accuracy after the wind change seemed to be a knee jerk reaction related to scores. Regardless, the ridiculously accurate results bombers have been getting for years should never be brought back. Combined with the more realistic randomness of bomb hits, large formations will produce more realistic bombing experience and results. The novelty of a change like this would probably placate any lingering wind worries.

On one hand you want to increase the formation to combat the wind effect making the bombing too difficult, but on the other hand you say that the bombing is already too accurate. These points go against each other. The guys who are after high scores do not pinpoint the ords, troops etc very often. They bomb multiple towns in a single sortie, because that gives the high score. With spread out formation multiple towns would still be easy to hit.

This is especially important on late nights when Euro players may be getting less game for the same dollars spent by US players. Additional arguments can be made along this line.

With 24 bombers, the ability for a formation to endure the less realistic, hard maneuvers that can be seen in game should be reduced along with the gamey factor. Formations would have to make longer, wider turns if they choose to make second passes on the same base.

Say there are 60 players in off peak time in the arena divided equally between the three sides. Now couple of players decide to make a bombing mission. These players are out of combat all the time they maneuver their gigantic formation around. If one player could control 24 buffs, then 4 players could put up a mission for 96 bombers. Even 24 would be huge compared to the number of players in one country. Maybe you get some 4 fighters to intercept that overwhelming number. And those fighters mostly combat the AI with maybe one gun manned by a real player. Not the experience I seek from an online game.

New players have enough of a learning curve without learning to gun from a bomber. A certain amount of success is required early on or only the most devoted or motivated will stay. An inexperienced player may not even have the skill to land for months let alone get kills. Doesn't have to be easy mode, but there should be a little more chance.

Always been this way, fighters are at an advantage until the gunner positions are mastered and that is not too common.

Again, it's unrealistic and an unfair advantage when two or more fighters hit bombers from multiple directions.

Even when players gather enough to build large missions, they rarely have the cohesiveness to stay in a tight formation where they might provide mutual fire support.

If you have a large formation and the player controls only one gun it takes a lot more time to learn the gunnery. If AI and you shoot at the same time there are many bullets flying and it would be hard to tell which are yours. If the player mans only one gun then the skill will not matter a lot, because single turret does not contribute much. Most is done by the AI.

On one post you stand for new players and want them to have a better experience in flying buffs, but on others you want the players to be making long flights, wait for the lost buffs to be replaced or punish them for lack of skill. I couldn`t imagine anything worse. Say a person bails out because something comes up in real life. You return to the game only to find out that you can`t up any buffs for a day or two.

I could also say that fighters have a disadvantage against the buffs until proper interception skill is mastered. It all depends on the players. If you have a three plane formation with AI guns and two fighters attack from different locations. Roughly half of the guns would shoot at one and half at another. Currently you can pick the closest and fire from everything you got and then turn to the next. Player`s skill plays more role and you have more chance in fighting off the attackers. I believe the gunners communicated with each other in real life, calling out targets. So all guns firing at one does not seem so unrealistic to me.

Building large missions should be up to the players in an online game. The leader plays an important role in selecting the pace and keeping the formation tight. Communication between the participants is necessary. This is one part of the piloting skill of the bombers in AH2. Replacing real players with an AI because they do not possess the skills needed to keep the perfect formation is questionable for me. On large missions to strats every player does not even need to calibrate. They can set the salvo/delay and drop on command. That allows them to spend more time in guarding the formation.

the b-29s are rarely wasted on front line battles for bases where most of the action is because the reward is negligible compared to the risk. that is reason enough to see so few of them flying now. nobody wants to risk 300+ bomber perks to anything but higher value targets with better rewards. and the existing strat system isn't reward enough to take the trip very often.

I operate on the exact opposite principle. Taking high value bombers to front line solo is safer because you can retreat towards your own territory quicker. The more time you spend behind enemy lines the higher the chance of interception by multiple fighters. I bet unescorted Lancasters return to base more often from striking front line bases than from strats.

There are some things I really like about the current strats system. First of all bombing those targets affects the whole war because the downtime of various objects can be increased a lot. I have a lot more motivation to hit them now. Secondly all is located in the same convenient place. It is easier for the interceptors to guess where the buffs are going and they have more motivation to intercept and stop them. In case of zonal bases or various other spread out targets it becomes more difficult to intercept because it is harder to guess where the buffs go. Especially so if the number of players is small. Proper interception is not chasing buffs from the base they overfly, but taking off from another field to be at the suitable altitude and position for attacking them before they get to the target. I think more targets would be cool. Like destroyable bridge to stop the supply convoy etc. I also think more targets mean more spread out players.

I have no complaints against the comets, the HQ should be a heavily defended target anyway. The players risk their perks and they usually get close to make the guns effective. Seems fair to me.

[gyrene81]

i pretty much agree with your opening statements Asterix. i think Muzik has an overly optimistic view of the appeal of his idea.

I operate on the exact opposite principle. Taking high value bombers to front line solo is safer because you can retreat towards your own territory quicker. The more time you spend behind enemy lines the higher the chance of interception by multiple fighters. I bet unescorted Lancasters return to base more often from striking front line bases than from strats.

it is very rare to see a flight of b29s at 5-12 thousand feet, which is average for most bombing runs on a base that is being fought over. those that do take b29s into those fights generally have perks to spare and don't care too much if they're lost. the ones i have seen lately have been used more for pork runs at 15-20 thousand feet on undefended bases and on high alt strat runs. at this point you're more likely to see b24s, b17s, lancs, and b26s because it doesn't cost anything to fly them.

There are some things I really like about the current strats system. First of all bombing those targets affects the whole war because the downtime of various objects can be increased a lot. I have a lot more motivation to hit them now. Secondly all is located in the same convenient place. It is easier for the interceptors to guess where the buffs are going and they have more motivation to intercept and stop them. In case of zonal bases or various other spread out targets it becomes more difficult to intercept because it is harder to guess where the buffs go. Especially so if the number of players is small. Proper interception is not chasing buffs from the base they overfly, but taking off from another field to be at the suitable altitude and position for attacking them before they get to the target. I think more targets would be cool. Like destroyable bridge to stop the supply convoy etc. I also think more targets mean more spread out players.

have to say that is odd. there is much less incentive to hit the strats now than there used to be. and it doesn't take long to re-supply them so their effect on the war effort is negligible. they would have a higher target value and be much more enticing to bombers if they were multi-tiered and spread out more. think about the possibility of mulitple strat targets within medium sized cities rather than the single mega city/strat system we have now. if the existing strat system were expanded to include lumber mills, steel mills, vehicle assembly plants and major rail stations, there would be all sorts of possibilities for changing the dynamics of the war. add in more supply convoys and trains, maybe even ship yards that control the ability to spawn ships, and the depth of the strat system becomes something more in line with the whole idea of war.

lumber mills would impact the respawn time of town buildings.
steel mills would impact the respawn time of hangars.
vehicle assembly plants would impact the supply convoys.
rail stations would impact the supply trains.
ship yards would impact the time or ability for a port to spawn a cv task group and supply barges.
make the headquarters control the radar system again.

make it a little more difficult to resupply strats so it can't be done as easily as it is now.

i can't say it would stop the hordes fighting over 2 or 3 bases but, it would most definitely make long range high alt bombing runs more palatable, not to mention the increase in the number of roaming buff hunters. as of right now, porking undefended bases is more rewarding than strat runs.

[Lusche]

have to say that is odd. there is much less incentive to hit the strats now than there used to be. .

Unless there has been a major change in the past 4 weeks, this should be very incorrect.

The strats had been broken for years, which made them totally worthless as a target. With the big change mid/end August 2012, this was changed to the better.


And it actually takes a lot more effort to resupply them than to smash them.

[gyrene81]

Unless there has been a major change in the past 4 weeks, this should be very incorrect.

The strats had been broken for years, which made them totally worthless as a target. With the big change mid/end August 2012, this was changed to the better.


And it actually takes a lot more effort to resupply them than to smash them.

then they are broken now. i've seen the strats leveled with little to no visible effect. and i've seen them resupplied faster than i would have thought possible, without a horde doing it. the only good thing is it is tougher to level the strats now. there really isn't much incentive to hit them. you can do more damage porking bases.

[Lusche]

then they are broken now. i've seen the strats leveled with little to no visible effect. and i've seen them resupplied faster than i would have thought possible, without a horde doing it. the only good thing is it is tougher to level the strats now. there really isn't much incentive to hit them. you can do more damage porking bases.

Don't know what you would call a "visible effect", increasing town and item downtimes from 30 to 60, 90 or even more minutes has quite some impact on the battlefield. A town with max dt 30 under attack can be easily held against enemy attacks with only one guy running supps in the m3.
It's a totally different matter with max dt of 90 minutes.

And on resupply time, you can do the math: Factory downtime is 180 minutes, one drop of supplies shortens it by 4 minutes (and you can only resupp one factory ata time). It really does take a horde to fix the strat damage in short time.
And no matter if 2 guys are resupping for hours of a horde is doing it for 20 minutes, it always takes more effort (in terms of manhours) than to smash the strats.

Before this system was introduced in mid 2012, the entire strats system was broken and thus totally irrelevant. So "less incentive than it used to be" ain't correct in any way.