Bomber Combat simulation in Aces High

[Brooke]

I think that bombers *are* balanced in the game.

In scenarios, bombers work such that, (1) when they are unescorted and jumped by a bunch of fighters, most of the bombers are going to be shot down, and (2) when they are strongly enough escorted, most of the bombers get through.  That is appropriately realistic.  Also, in both cases, the bomber pilots with better gunning skill tend to have significant advantages in survival, and when bombers get to target, the bomber pilots with more skill in bombing things destroy more objects and achieve more objectives.  So bomber-pilot skill matters a lot.  Also, on the opposite side, fighter-pilot skill matters a lot.  There are guys who are terrors of the sky, and average pilots who aren't nearly as dangerous to bombers.  In most cases, unless the bombers never see an enemy, whether bombers are all shot down or not, there is plenty of action in the process for the bomber pilots and the fighter pilots.

All of this works well enough that bomber pilots and fighter pilots tend to have lots of fun in bomber-centric scenarios like Der Grosse Schlag and feel that things are well balanced.

In the Main Arena, they also seem balanced.  If you go in on the deck and get swarmed by attacking fighters, you will get shot down.  If you go in with altitude and have to fend off an attacker or two who isn't so skilled and if you are a decent gunner, you can make it to target.  If a super-skilled fighter pilot attacks you, and you have no escort, you are in big trouble.  If you have escort, you can often make it to target.

All of that seems reasonable.  Bombers are neither so weak that they never get to target nor so powerful that they always get to target.  That is balance.

[Lusche]

You poor thing. And here you are arguing that they shouldn't have a fighting chance either.

I am not. That's just what you are trying to impute to me.
I for one have the firm belief that in the LW MA bombers DO have a fighting chance, if well flown. A n00b Lanc pilot flying into a welld efended enemy base at 8k will die as certain as a fighetr n00b slowly croaching up to a B-29's butt.
If both are competently flown, the fighter has the better chance against the bomber for sure, but that doesn't mean the bomber has not any.

I for one had quite a satisyfying air to air K/D in bombers last year...


(though I'm almost curious about he next basesless allegation  - Will it be "You fly only at 35k!" or "You shoot down only your shades!" or "You hardly fly bombers at all!" ?)

[Volron]

I am not. That's just what you are trying to impute to me.
I for one have the firm belief that in the LW MA bombers DO have a fighting chance, if well flown. A n00b Lanc pilot flying into a welld efended enemy base at 8k will die as certain as a fighetr n00b slowly croaching up to a B-29's butt.
If both are competently flown, the fighter has the better chance against the bomber for sure, but that doesn't mean the bomber has not any.

I for one had quite a satisyfying air to air K/D in bombers last year...


(though I'm almost curious about he next basesless allegation  - Will it be "You fly only at 35k!" or "You shoot down only your shades!" or "You hardly fly bombers at all!" ?)

I will take #2 for $1500.

I think that bombers *are* balanced in the game.

In scenarios, bombers work such that, (1) when they are unescorted and jumped by a bunch of fighters, most of the bombers are going to be shot down, and (2) when they are strongly enough escorted, most of the bombers get through.  That is appropriately realistic.  Also, in both cases, the bomber pilots with better gunning skill tend to have significant advantages in survival, and when bombers get to target, the bomber pilots with more skill in bombing things destroy more objects and achieve more objectives.  So bomber-pilot skill matters a lot.  Also, on the opposite side, fighter-pilot skill matters a lot.  There are guys who are terrors of the sky, and average pilots who aren't nearly as dangerous to bombers.  In most cases, unless the bombers never see an enemy, whether bombers are all shot down or not, there is plenty of action in the process for the bomber pilots and the fighter pilots.

All of this works well enough that bomber pilots and fighter pilots tend to have lots of fun in bomber-centric scenarios like Der Grosse Schlag and feel that things are well balanced.

In the Main Arena, they also seem balanced.  If you go in on the deck and get swarmed by attacking fighters, you will get shot down.  If you go in with altitude and have to fend off an attacker or two who isn't so skilled and if you are a decent gunner, you can make it to target.  If a super-skilled fighter pilot attacks you, and you have no escort, you are in big trouble.  If you have escort, you can often make it to target.

All of that seems reasonable.  Bombers are neither so weak that they never get to target nor so powerful that they always get to target.  That is balance.

Well, it also depends on escort skill as well, if you remember.  Escorts that do their job and provide escort, allow us to make it to target with little problem.  It's the escorts that decide to abandon their job in favor of "glory" is when we tend to get hammered.

I'll take 4 escort pilots who will stick with us over a two squadrons of "glory seekers" ANY DAY.



And I see that those who think bombers are too hard to kill/have it easy are avoiding my little challenge like the plague.

[muzik]

See rule #2 & 4

[muzik]

If this is the heart of what you mean, then we can skip arguing about how it takes no skill to kill bombers (it does take skill), how bombers can't survive attacks (they can in various situations survive), and the simultaneously contradictory statement of how attackers are always shot down by bombers (attackers are not always shot down).

Instead, we can talk about what you are really advocating:  what would be "balanced" in your view?

Stop back pedalling. You proved it better than anyone could.  In scenarios, you have consistent 100% losses of mid/large bomber formations flying close enough for mutual fire support.

The worst raids in ww2 rarely if ever, had those kinds of losses. What chance does the typical single player formation in the MA have?

[muzik]

I am not. That's just what you are trying to impute to me.

Really? So what are the odds for a new player? One with no previous experience? And what about the most prevalent player type who won't check help files or actually put an effort into understanding his task? What is that 90% of the player base?

[Lusche]

Really? So what are the odds for a new player?

What are the odds for that very same new player in a fighter vs other fighters with experience?

[LCADolby]

Bombers are only as safe as the gunner is good.

[muzik]

What are the odds for that very same new player in a fighter vs other fighters with experience?

Apples and ANVILS.

In a fighter, I am solely responsible for successfully operating a fighter just as it was in WW2.

In a bomber, I am tasked with doing the job of 10 other people, frequently several at the same time.

[muzik]

(though I'm almost curious about he next basesless allegation)

My allegations are never baseless. Advocating player skill without AI be the sole defense of bomber formations = helpless.

You said it yourself in the same breath...

I for one have the firm belief that in the LW MA bombers DO have a fighting chance, if well flown.

Lest you forget we are including noobs.

[Brooke]

Stop back pedalling. You proved it better than anyone could.  In scenarios, you have consistent 100% losses of mid/large bomber formations flying close enough for mutual fire support.

The worst raids in ww2 rarely if ever, had those kinds of losses. What chance does the typical single player formation in the MA have?

Some people have said that bombers are too tough to kill, and others have said that bombers are too easy to kill.  I disagree with both statements.

Bombers being too tough to kill is countered by evidence in scenarios showing large bomber losses when they are unescorted and jumped on by a large number of enemy fighters.  Bombers being too easy to kill is countered by evidence in scenarios showing bombers surviving when well-enough escorted or, even in unescorted groups, if those groups are not attacked by a large number of enemy fighters.  So, in scenarios, bombers live or die in situations analogous to when they lived or died in WWII.

In AH loss rate for everything (bombers, yes, but also fighters, attack planes, tanks, GV's, PT boats, and ships) is higher than WWII.  That is because we don't die when we are shot down and because we have 1000 hours of shooting time.  Given those aspects, how bombers work in AH is, in my opinion, decently realistic.

What chance does the typical single player formation in the MA have?

A decent one -- as long as he doesn't do something like fly alone into a base swarming with many enemy fighters at and above his altitude.

[Brooke]

Here is a clip of an He 111 run to target in the previous "Battle of Britain" scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk9V66e88eI

We have escort and get attacked by a flight of enemy fighters, which we and the escort take care of without losses being too bad.

Then we get jumped by a large group of enemies.  Our escort engages some of it, and we fight some of it.  Our losses are significant, but some bombers still battle through it.

I don't think the bombers in this are either too hard to too easy to kill.

[The Fugitive]

My allegations are never baseless. Advocating player skill without AI be the sole defense of bomber formations = helpless.

You said it yourself in the same breath...

Lest you forget we are including noobs.

Any player who doesn't want to take the time to learn to get better at playing, whether it be fighters, bombers, or GV is going to SUCK and be easy meat for anyone. Todays players.... for the most part are not all that interested in becoming "skilled" players. They are happy to be part of the horde and MAYBE get bombs on a target, or get enough rounds into a defender that he goes down before the goon gets taken out.

We play a far different game than what we played 5-10 years ago. 10 years ago I'd bet half of the players flew wearing goggles and scarfs, we were playing the war game. We learned to bomb, gun, acm's and bfm's. Today people use auto take off, are asking for air spawns for fighters, and any other thing to make the game more steam lined to do nothing buzz through the land grab to WIN DA WAR!

For the most part bombers are easy to take down. When they are alone unescorted. Put a few groups together and they are much harder to take out. Add some fighter cover and forget about it unless your attacking force is as big as their full group AND have the alt advantage. The problem isn't that the buffs are weak, it's that people don't use them the way they were designed to be used. Thats a player problem, not a game mechanic one.

   

[999000]

..On fighter pilots escorting bombers.........There is one simple way that helps a bomber pilot the most.......TAKE AWAY THE RELATIVE HIGH ATTACKER SO HE ONLY GETS ONE HIGH ANGLE ATTACK PASS. <S>

[muzik]

Any player who doesn't want to take the time to learn to get better at playing, whether it be fighters, bombers, or GV is going to SUCK and be easy meat for anyone. Todays players.... for the most part are not all that interested in becoming "skilled" players. They are happy to be part of the horde and MAYBE get bombs on a target, or get enough rounds into a defender that he goes down before the goon gets taken out.

snip

Still the same old false conclusions.

1. Everyone wants to get better, they're just slaves to their laziness.

2. Not everyone wants to play YOUR way and could care less that you want to find a good 1v1.

3. No one want's to avoid combat, they just want to WIN. As long as the game is set up the way it is, people will keep winning WITHIN THE RULES layed out or NOT layed out by the game developer.