I have fun by ruining other people's sorties.. shooting at AI wouldn't give me that.. 
A man after my own heart. But this is just a test.
and you're still overestimating the appeal of large bomber formations, especially when there aren't enough reasons for those formations to get used (dirt isn't an asset in the aerial war).
Then let the truth be known, I won't argue this point again. And dirt is, and always has been the most critical factor in warfare. Taking it, defending it or terrorizing it. The sky lasts only as long as a tank of gas.
Do you ever question the accuracy of your conclusions? Based on the fact that you misunderstand or fail to grasp the concept many times I would expect that you would question your judgement more. I don't mean to take pot shots, but you keep coming to these conclusions all while showing me that you don't clearly understand my suggestion and only seem to want to prove me wrong.
Case in point,
the dirt is NOT the target. The city is. This is a game and we use our imaginations to fill in the gaps, remember? I know that is a concept you have frequently alluded to and stood behind.
The only thing I have suggested is that the "object be changed to the outline of the city. Why? Because I want give buffs a bigger, easier target to hit? No, The target size isn't really that big a deal considering all that's really happening is bombs scatter over a city.
In the Lusche thread you joined in the ridicule of "realistic" changes to the game and the assumption that others are too uptight. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. You suggested that we MUST DESTROY A BUILDING because it's silly that that same plot of ground be the real target, "because it's dirt." Too much of a stretch of the imagination for you?
Is it REALLY that big a deal if points are generated when a bomb hits the same city street that it would hit if the house was the object? The bombs hit the streets all the time, yet points are given only for the nearest houses that get destroyed.
Is it REALLY a critical 'game maker' that one or two buildings survive until someone laser sights them like an Xbox game to finish the strats off? You pounce on gamey acts in the game yet you sit here and defend laser bombing. I'm sure some bomber guys get a great thrill because they were able to accurately knock out the few buildings left. It's just an incredibly crucial aspect of the game that we keep this aspect isn't it?
I haven't suggested taking away every "precision bombing" challenge in the game. There would always be something to target if that's what gets them off. What I offered was a way to make the strats a more active part of the game. It's a way to keep them coming back run after run and still get points for it as opposed to, just as an example, a bunch of guys making a run on strats and the first couple taking out all the targets making the run practically useless to the last in. Sure they could always divert to another target, but there's that "long mission" hurdle you yourself admitted was a problem for most guys.
The buildings would still blow up like always. Perhaps their down time stays the same, but for the sake of points the outline would be the big pay off. And if it really matters that much, there could be a tiny bonus for taking out buildings too.
Morale that I mentioned and you also misunderstand does not depend on having civilians modeled in game. It was already modeled by Ht in AW. Hitting factories that shut down or slow production causes physical limitations due to facility loss, material loss and also labor reductions. That same concept that resulted in Spits being unavailable in AW can also be used in a way that says "xxx amount of Strat damage = xxx increase in object down time" Morale isn't the only factor, and probably not the biggest factor that made it harder for a population to continue to fight and recover from attacks, but it is a factor. If you want to call it something else be my guest. The principle is the same. Hitting civilian populations demoralized and decreased their will to work in factories that support the war effort, caused havoc in their lives and forced them into anarchy. The result (in AH) could be a base supply system suffers from delays and equipment shortages, increased object down time as a result of limited supplys, etc. OR I could come up with different possibilities if I actually cared to go that far right now.
All of these extra ideas I threw out there aren't by my choice. They were answers to all of your what ifs because as you said, you're pessimistic. They are valid possibilities for later but having formations doesnt depend on these added complexities of the game. The reality is, if formations ever were implemented it would be done just like everything else. Churn it out and throw it in the fire and let the chips fall where they want. It will either end up a hanger queen or dominate the game.
And yes, I noticed the fact we only have one strat city. And my idea, just like every good idea ever barbecued on the bbs took into consideration some FUTURE improvements to the game would make the wish more viable.
You were also wrong about saturation bombing, what do you think happens when a thousand bombers drop on a target? Carpet bombing and saturation bombing are the same thing and they didn't have 1k bombing raids in Vietnam.
Yes, bomber pilots got credit for their mission, <----the MAIN reason I suggested that the outline of the city was used for points.Because it didn't require insane building object hardness and could have a large hit point value attached so that MOST strat runners got something out of their run, creating a need and a place in the game for large formations with a viable target. Hell, I don't know, maybe they could attach hit value to the bombed out buildings and still provide the same effect I am suggesting, consistent use and validation for large formations.
As you can see, when I thought the formation idea out I anticipated almost everything or at least had a basic understanding of how it would play out. I didn't throw out any extra game changes or expect other game changes. I left that up to those that had to find ways to criticize.
Hence this new suggestion. It doesn't cause any of the problems you suggested. It would provide an entertaining event that could happen as little or as much as practical and WOULD have an appeal to old players and new ones alike. You can speculate that I'm wrong all you want, but you're pissing in the wind and the only way to prove it is if it is tried.
The only downside is what Kvuo said, it doesn't give me the satisfaction of shooting other players. So you achieved your goal of taking the fun out of it.
Now I'm going to bow out. I've listened to your counter points and appreciated your input to some degree, but you seem dead set on proving me wrong. I on the other hand am willing to concede if you came up with valid reasons I should. And I have, your most valid point is that without any other changes the formations would be impractical. That does not apply to this new suggestion. Your opinion of the appeal of the idea is only that, your opinion. And your belief that I am overestimating is just arrogant and wrong. I don't think it will be an epiphany to the game, but it could be impressive. Depends on how well the idea is developed.
<S> It's been a grand debate.
