bomber formations

[muzik]

(Image removed from quote.)

Your point is?

I know it happened at times in the war. The balances don't exist to make this as risky as it was in RL (or as relatively rare) so it winds up being a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH.

Those bombers likely suffered intense flak. In AH they fly over GV battles with little to no air opposition or flak on a regular basis.

10k drop limit is a concession for gameplay.

[Zacherof]

Not to mention the B29's bombing on the deck

[Arlo]

Your point is?

I know it happened at times in the war. The balances don't exist to make this as risky as it was in RL (or as relatively rare) so it winds up being a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH.

Those bombers likely suffered intense flak. In AH they fly over GV battles with little to no air opposition or flak on a regular basis.

10k drop limit is a concession for gameplay.

My point is that the limitation you are suggesting is one more game modification and it doesn't reflect
either history or design. To make your wish work you're suggesting more and more modifications to
the game. Your 'concession' is additional coding and the 'benefit' to the individual player is questionable, at best.

[gyrene81]

Your point is?

I know it happened at times in the war. The balances don't exist to make this as risky as it was in RL (or as relatively rare) so it winds up being a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH.

Those bombers likely suffered intense flak. In AH they fly over GV battles with little to no air opposition or flak on a regular basis.

10k drop limit is a concession for gameplay.

actually Muzik, in the case of bases, the balances do exist. auto ack at the bases is heavier than those low alt bombers would have experienced. they would have gotten more small arms fire from troops on the ground than land based flak. as low as that pic Arlo posted would end up in no bomb detonations in game. but even at 2000ft base ack would knock them down easily

i don't agree with the 10,000ft limitation either...it's not a logical or reasonable limitation.

[Wiley]

ya that wind complaint kinda puzzles me. i've yet to run into an issue.

at anything below max speed they're cannon fodder. if someone tried to come in at 3000ft flying 150mph they're toast just from the base auto ack. if the base dar isn't down, as soon as they cross into the circle, a p40e has time to get off the field and get above them before they can hit the base.

Muzik's 10k then.  And he's going to take out how many of the 24 before they get there?  I'm a slightly above average dweeb when it comes to hitting bombers, but I think I'd be doing really good in that scenario in my jug to get 6 of them, and I would not give survival much of a chance.

You don't know that yet and it all depends on how committed htc would be to making it work.

In other words, "it would have to be changed somehow"...

I've gone back and read the entire post.  These large formations hinge on changing the entire game around them, how every aspect of the air to ground war works.  The only reasonable response to that is yes, it's possible.

Feasible or a good idea?  Anything we say either way can essentially be handwaved by 'Oh it won't be that way.'  I lost count of the number of times you've used 'You don't know that' in this thread.  I think you're severely overestimating how attractive it would be, and also how beneficial it would be.

But, in any case, good luck with it.

Wiley.

[gyrene81]

Muzik's 10k then.  And he's going to take out how many of the 24 before they get there?  I'm a slightly above average dweeb when it comes to hitting bombers, but I think I'd be doing really good in that scenario in my jug to get 6 of them, and I would not give survival much of a chance.

in a jug? i wouldn't give great odds on taking more than 4 or 5 down before the jug goes down. with a 110 or 190a8 carrying the heavy gun package, the odds are better. with a ta152, 262 or 163, the odds are far better.

[Wiley]

in a jug? i wouldn't give great odds on taking more than 4 or 5 down before the jug goes down. with a 110 or 190a8 carrying the heavy gun package, the odds are better. with a ta152, 262 or 163, the odds are far better.

Ok, maybe a touch of hubris on my part.   I was being a touch optimistic.  That was also accounting for me being in a decent position when they broke dar.  The 152 takes a rad hit on its second pass, but yeah the jets might fare a bit better.

And that's all headed toward the base at once, under the control of one player.

Since the idea is predicated on changing the entire air to ground game to something else, there's little point discussing the particulars of how it would work under current conditions.

Wiley.

[muzik]

My point is that the limitation you are suggesting is one more game modification and it doesn't reflect
either history or design. To make your wish work you're suggesting more and more modifications to
the game. Your 'concession' is additional coding and the 'benefit' to the individual player is questionable, at best.

Fine, then you have no problem with the low level bombing going on so your concern is negated either way.

"...doesnt reflect design" ?  what design?

As for history, it certainly does reflect it. Flying that low was dangerous regardless of flak concentrations (as Gyrene just commented) until late in the war when allies had air superiority. So the risks were there. And even IF, there weren't as heavy concentrations compared to AH there was more scattered throughout the country for various reasons. We have nothing between bases and towns aside from occasional flakpanzers. Taken together, it's hardly the same risk levels.

Apparently you think that coding something like a 10k drop limit is some monumental undertaking. It's not. It's a simple change with relatively little effort involved. What other huge barriers were you referring to? Because as I said, most of what I suggested was for future overall improvements, not immediate needs.

actually Muzik, in the case of bases, the balances do exist. auto ack at the bases is heavier than those low alt bombers would have experienced. they would have gotten more small arms fire from troops on the ground than land based flak. as low as that pic Arlo posted would end up in no bomb detonations in game. but even at 2000ft base ack would knock them down easily

i don't agree with the 10,000ft limitation either...it's not a logical or reasonable limitation.

The most notable low level attacks by heavies of the war was Operation Tidal Wave. It was disasterous. I know there were other examples of low level attacks but compared to high level bombing they were 10x more dangerous and thus far less often, attack and multi-role fighters not included. So I believe restricting heavy bombers to 10k+ is more than logical and reasonable. That was the vast majority of their RL usage.

But personally, I don't really care whether it's used or not. Like you said, they are easy meat for fighters at those levels and since I rarely GV and am not highly invested in winning the war it won't affect me all that much. I only suggested it as a concession to GV complaints.

[muzik]

Since the idea is predicated on changing the entire air to ground game to something else, there's little point discussing the particulars of how it would work under current conditions.

It's not dependent or predicated on changing the entire game. But hell yea I had future changes in mind with it.

Are you telling me that if I go over your old post I won't find a single example of you agreeing with or making suggestions for what you believe are drastic changes?

[Zacherof]

190A8 would really puT a hurt on if the triggers were fixed. Won have to waste ammo

[Wiley]

It's not dependent or predicated on changing the entire game. But hell yea I had future changes in mind with it.

Are you telling me that if I go over your old post I won't find a single example of you agreeing with or making suggestions for what you believe are drastic changes?

Sure.  However, this idea on its own, if it were implemented into the game tomorrow would be horrible.  It depends on the nebulous supporting game changes, a few of which have been vaguely referenced in this thread, to work.

Wiley.

[Arlo]

Apparently you think that coding something like a 10k drop limit is some monumental undertaking. It's not. It's a simple change with relatively little effort involved. What other huge barriers were you referring to? Because as I said, most of what I suggested was for future overall improvements, not immediate needs.

Where did you imagine that? What I'm saying is your wish isn't as simple as even
you admit. You want one player to be able to control two full squadrons of heavy
bombers and when challenged my others in this thread about the practicality of
such a wish you have to add more to it to make it 'workable.' Sorry, I don't see
this wish representing a future overall 'improvement.' An improvement is not
a potential charlie foxtrot. Having said that, try not to take it so personal when a
wish of yours isn't met with accolades and praise by everyone. I'm sure you have
other ideas that may well stimulate and excite many of your fellow players. You may
even learn the fine art of true compromise and propose something similar that would
actually be more practical. That's how you generally build momentum behind an idea.

[muzik]

Sure.  However, this idea on its own, if it were implemented into the game tomorrow would be horrible.  It depends on the nebulous supporting game changes, a few of which have been vaguely referenced in this thread, to work.

Wiley.

Sir Reads a Little,

How often are you going to repeat what I already admitted to? With your own added dramatizations of course.

I never said it had to happen tomorrow. I never said I even wanted it tomorrow.

I made it crystal clear I believed other changes would improve the validity of the idea. Especially the strategic aspects of the game. "Future changes." Said it many times. I also said other changes would be preferable, but NOT dependent.

Your argument is a fail. All you have stated so far were things I already admitted to. Not once did I ever say throwing them in the game was the right way to do it.

I don't make the game, I just made a suggestion. That suggestion included the absolute basics that would work in game without being ideal and more advance suggestions that would take a considerable amount more work.

Is that clear enough for you? Should I repeat my sentiments here so that you can understand better? ...adding this feature without other changes in the game would be an injustice. It could be done, but it wouldn't be ideal.

And lets just get one thing out in the open for anyone who doesn't know that you're objections here are 90% more likely based on your petty little grudge against me than any other factor. I wonder how far I'd have to go back in your posts to find you agreeing with similar changes or ideas. Maybe even your own suggestions.

Where did you imagine that? What I'm saying is your wish isn't as simple as even
you admit. You want one player to be able to control two full squadrons

Mr. Pot or Kettle (Sorry it's hard to tell)

What planet did you get kicked off of? Are you serious? Do you remember this???

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,347308.0.html

I'll refresh your memory. ...PARATROOPER INFANTRY ROLES

In other words "full squadrons" of drone soldiers that attacked towns and GVs.

And you think your idea is different why? Because they take up fewer pixels on the screen?

You think your idea is simple why?

How well do you remember this???

(and oft I play devils advocate, regarding other wishes) but, and let me preface with my having no clue about how hard this would be to code, what about expanding the role of drunks in the game?

In other words "I intrude just for the sake of bashing others ideas without really adding to the discussion or seeking to add constructive criticism, I simply seek to troll and grieve."

Notice you also mention how little "clue" you have about the complexity of programming the idea and how vague you are about how complex the idea would turn out to be. 

Now I'll stop responding to your retarded logic, childish argument tactics and personal attacks before I say something I'll regret.

Neither one of you nuts has come up with a single valid reason large formations couldn't be included other than one I already thought of. And judging by the new  addition to the game, the idea is obviously not far from the mark is it!

[muzik]

Dhawk and I ran some tests yesterday and we didn't have a lot of time to play with it, but one of the first things we ran into, was making turns at any bank angle, the wingman's aircraft did a lot of jerky around, control yoke jerking around constanly and we never did do a successful 90 degree change in direction. Someone pointed out that AH was working the bugs out, but as far as straight and level, no problem. We were using B-17's.

Well there's the answer to the "I want to fly formation myself because I'm awesome that way" guys.

If the system has a hard time keeping two players in formation through turns because of lag or whatever the cause may be, then don't force the system to do it.

You said it yourself Earl, you call out your turns. There's no reason the system should have to do all of the work. It's reasonable to assume if a formation of bombers makes a turn it is either planned and executed quietly or the lead calls out the turn.

The turns are the least of the coordination problem. The problem is keeping it together while under attack and to a lesser degree seeing a large group stay tight en-route.

[muzik]

Oh WAIT, I GOT IT.

1 24 bomber formation per hour, the pilot chosen by lottery.

Flame on.

I so look forward to the argument for this one.