Bomber Scoring

[asterix]

You might as well ask for what you really want, yes? Current map win percentages as they are, plus a requirement for all factories and the city to be down by at least ##%, and the final button push would be the bombing of HQ.

That would very nicely reproduce the events of real war, force people to defend the factories and HQ both, and perhaps the furballers would be the ones that log off rather than the tank drivers.

Forcing people to do things, anything, is never good for business.

This thread seems to be about bomber scoring not winning the war requirements.

[Chalenge]

This thread seems to be about bomber scoring not winning the war requirements.

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.

Which are you? (I was answering bustr)

[earl1937]

I won't comment at the OP wish at the moment, but this



...is already the case. Apart from the goon base capture, the key to a supreme bomber score is to milk towns exclusively , which is frequently done from the safety of a very high altitude. And unlike strat missions, enemy fighters come rarely after you during a 30k town milk run and you encounter no flak.

I have never "milk" run bombers since I have been in this game! Maybe I ought to start, but I had rather not! I might drop a salvo or two on a town RTB after a bomb run somewhere after we captured a base and I didn't need to use them.
All I am saying is just this: There should be a way to reward people who fly bombers, like myself, 95% of the time! Maybe combine the hangar scores in one category and the town buildings in another, with a combine score, with the hangars and vehicles having more damage points awarded than just buildings. That would discourage town "milk" running. I just think requiring other game scores on bombers is not an accurate picture of what a bomber pilot can do!!

[jeffdn]

I made another thread about this, but nobody replied to it. Here were my thoughts:

Is there a way to change the way damage points are awarded to change up the way bombers are used? I was thinking something like this for each of the following types of targets:

Strats: you don't get too many points for hitting the strats. Upping the amount of damage awarded would cause more people to go hit them, I think. Perhaps there could be some sort of multiplier, wherein the percent of the particular target you destroy increases the amount of damage points given. Say someone drops 72% of the radar factory, perhaps the damage could be multiplied by the percentage over 50 reached: if you do 10,000 damage, you are awarded 12,200 damage points, and so on.

Towns: same as above, but with an inverse effect as well to disincentivize milk running.

Bases: you don't really get anything for dropping hangars and the other various base targets. These should be more worthwhile.

Thoughts?

It's not super elegant, but I thought it might be a solution of sorts.

[earl1937]

I made another thread about this, but nobody replied to it. Here were my thoughts:

Is there a way to change the way damage points are awarded to change up the way bombers are used? I was thinking something like this for each of the following types of targets:

Strats: you don't get too many points for hitting the strats. Upping the amount of damage awarded would cause more people to go hit them, I think. Perhaps there could be some sort of multiplier, wherein the percent of the particular target you destroy increases the amount of damage points given. Say someone drops 72% of the radar factory, perhaps the damage could be multiplied by the percentage over 50 reached: if you do 10,000 damage, you are awarded 12,200 damage points, and so on.

Towns: same as above, but with an inverse effect as well to disincentivize milk running.

Bases: you don't really get anything for dropping hangars and the other various base targets. These should be more worthwhile.

Thoughts?

It's not super elegant, but I thought it might be a solution of sorts.

You make some good points, but I would be for scoring more damage points for a hangar kill, than say, 10 buildings, because the hangar is much more important than a town building. I don't meant to slight town buildings, but heck, you can shoot them down with a "wireb", but don't think it can kill a hangar! Not sure about that, because I don't know much about GV scoring and such.

[bustr]

Over the years I have become sympathetic to bomber only players after flying bombers a few times.

If all bomber pilots subscribed to the idea that each capture object is a mini war. Then there would be no problem for them. Fighters cannot easily duplicate the over whelming ability to effect the outcome of capturing an object by the press of a button.

As was true in real life is true in this game. Fighter pilots and bomber pilots have different personalities and motivations. This means the expected rewards for them paying their $14.95 is different. As with GV so to bombers in this game have grown into institutions as strong as the original core of fighter fans. Keeping bomber pilots entertained and rewarded is as important as fighter pilots and GV commanders. Hitech's child has grown up and it is multi talented young man.

[whiteman]

Pamphlet loadouts!!  Yes!!   

microwavable burritos

[jeffdn]

You make some good points, but I would be for scoring more damage points for a hangar kill, than say, 10 buildings, because the hangar is much more important than a town building. I don't meant to slight town buildings, but heck, you can shoot them down with a "wireb", but don't think it can kill a hangar! Not sure about that, because I don't know much about GV scoring and such.

I agree, and sorry if that wasn't made clear by my post. Hangars, radar towers, bunkers, and other base objects, as well as the strat objects, should be worth more than they currently are, and the towns should be worth less.

[No9Squadron]

As a new player, I'm still figuring what alters my score and I notice that flying into a furball in B24s and killing enemy fighters, protecting other bombers, or killing CVs all night, does little to your score, while guys who are bombing fresh towns alone, with no enemies around are getting higher scores, they are also ruining it for the team, because sections of town then pop when the CV has arrived and is trying to take the town. Seems you have to learn the scoring to increase the bomber scoring, I would agree.

[bustr]

You could always wish for the flack towers from the strats to be added around the towns with painfully accurate puffy ack. Wish for the solid reinforced concrete structure to take 2-3 1000lb bombs to destroy, or equivalent tank rounds. Then bombing the towns would carry the same flack risks ETO bombers faced even on milk runs. Tanks could be given a pass and only aircraft trigger the AI in the flack towers at 3000ft like from CV groups. It would probably never turn into something that GVers would defend from enemy GV's to keep the town able to defend itself from bombers and jabo though.

Would certainty make them one of the most serious targets to destroy before doing anything from the air to an airfield. But, the unintended consequence would be the furballing whack A mole standoffs we enjoy called ack hugging a Capped field. Would no longer be possible other than as a result of a full on assault of the field during an NOE hoard capture attempt. It would be similar to parking a CV group at a town where the answer to it's defensive fire is 30 NOE players all looking to kill the AI ack first. Then vulch the field.

For every change made to this game, so many unintended changes to how players ultimately address them. Like  Clausewitz said: "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

[Chalenge]

Now there's an egregious misinterpretation of an idea if there ever was one.