City Block Hardness Adjustment

[SmokinLoon]

I stand corrected on the factory downtime but as I pointed out, if this were to occur, then the correct equivalent "for balance" would be to up the resupply from a "funky" four to an even 10 minutes for strats.  So, I won't use the EZ mode button, but ask why is it that you need a lighter bomb to kill city blocks in the first place? 
Downtimes for town buildings and HQ trump all other strats in any case.  But no matter what I think about it the "one" that it takes to convince may be HTC (Dale).

It isn't the fact that a "lighter" bomber would be needed, but rather a lighter bomb load to be used over a larger area.

I wont speak directly for HTC, but putting the hardness of the city blocks where it is at allows for the lighter bombs to have a purpose in bombing the strategic targets.  Using 1000 lb bombs (or 500 kg) is over kill.  It is actually a waste of tonnage to use 1k bombs on city blocks.  Oh, and I suggest to compare how many city blocks can be destroyed using a B17's load of 250 lb bombs vs 500 lb or 1000 lb bomb load outs.  You may be surprised.   

Speaking on the lighter bomb load outs... FWIW, my grandfather told me outright and his flight logs show it, that he never flew a mission with 1000 lb bombs, and only a few were flown with 500 lb bombs.  Most of his missions used 250 lb bombs and I know of at least 1 mission his bomber used 100 lb bombs.  Granted, most of his targets were static Japanese defenses and Japanese supply shipping, but the same principle applies. So I have no issues with HTC allowing for "efficient" use of tonnage and making the lighter bombs a better buy vs the city blocks.  I think it makes perfect sense, really.  To string out the ordnance over X area is better used with lighter bombs. 

[Karnak]

If it makes the Ki-67 more useful that would add to the variety of bombers in the MA and that can only be considered a good thing.

[TheCrazyOrange]

It's a shame the Japanese didn't make any provisions to increase the load at the expense of performance. It had plenty to spare, and the Ki-67 could really be made great with an extra 1000lbs of bombs.

It seems to be a common theme with Japanese bombers. Of course when your industry would have trouble replacing lost units in a major conflict, I guess survivability is a greater asset. Live to fight another day and all that.

[SmokinLoon]

It's a shame the Japanese didn't make any provisions to increase the load at the expense of performance. It had plenty to spare, and the Ki-67 could really be made great with an extra 1000lbs of bombs.

It seems to be a common theme with Japanese bombers. Of course when your industry would have trouble replacing lost units in a major conflict, I guess survivability is a greater asset. Live to fight another day and all that.

Japanese bombers needed range first and foremost, and their targets were not typically cities like London, Paris, new York, etc. Most of their targets were made of bamboo and thatch. However, I do agree that as the war went on I'm surprised as well they didn't carry heavier ordnance.

[Chilli]

It isn't the fact that a "lighter" bomber would be needed, but rather a lighter bomb load to be used over a larger area.

I wont speak directly for HTC, but putting the hardness of the city blocks where it is at allows for the lighter bombs to have a purpose in bombing the strategic targets.  Using 1000 lb bombs (or 500 kg) is over kill.  It is actually a waste of tonnage to use 1k bombs on city blocks.  Oh, and I suggest to compare how many city blocks can be destroyed using a B17's load of 250 lb bombs vs 500 lb or 1000 lb bomb load outs.  You may be surprised.   

Speaking on the lighter bomb load outs... FWIW, my grandfather told me outright and his flight logs show it, that he never flew a mission with 1000 lb bombs, and only a few were flown with 500 lb bombs.  Most of his missions used 250 lb bombs and I know of at least 1 mission his bomber used 100 lb bombs.  Granted, most of his targets were static Japanese defenses and Japanese supply shipping, but the same principle applies. So I have no issues with HTC allowing for "efficient" use of tonnage and making the lighter bombs a better buy vs the city blocks.  I think it makes perfect sense, really.  To string out the ordnance over X area is better used with lighter bombs. 

I believe that you may be reading into what I said, read again and you see that I did say lighter bomb.  Now, that you bring up lighter bombers, don't you think that possibility pushes the advantage further in favor of the bombers?  In my first response, I addressed my concern over bombers with less fuel, less weight and needing less room (meaning: accelerated climb rate and speed).  You and others that approve of the wish have mentioned light bombers by name, which I could infer from your original post may be your intent also.

My guess is that this is one of those wishes that does make historical sense, but has adverse game play effects.  Since this is not a simulation, I propose that any more advantages with the "present" strat system should be balanced (resupply time adjustment could do this) in the interest of the entire community of players.  I submit to your sensibility that none of them wish to lose radar capabilities, or endure prolonged white flags over their towns to defend.

[Xavier]

I believe that you may be reading into what I said, read again and you see that I did say lighter bomb.  Now, that you bring up lighter bombers, don't you think that possibility pushes the advantage further in favor of the bombers?  In my first response, I addressed my concern over bombers with less fuel, less weight and needing less room (meaning: accelerated climb rate and speed).  You and others that approve of the wish have mentioned light bombers by name, which I could infer from your original post may be your intent also.

That's a valid concern, but I don't think it would greatly affect gameplay. No heavy bomber would benefit from the change, while the Ki-67, G4M, Ju-88, Tu-2 and He-111 definitely would. The ki-67, for example, would be able to drop 8 city blocks instead of a maximum of 6 (perfectly placed 250kg bombs). My point is that while those light and medium bombers would be somewhat useful for city raids, they would still be leagues behind the heavies. The He-111 would be quite attractive, able to drop 16 city blocks with an all-internal bombload. But getting to alt and into strats alive in that ride would be quite a challenge, that's for sure!

Take for example a B-24 with a 16x250lb loadout, and you can take out 16 city blocks if you make two passes. Take the 12x500lb loadoud, place the bombs right and you'll drop from 18 to 24 city blocks if you can make several passes undisturbed. But the absolute king is the Lancaster with 18x500lb + 1x4000lb loadout. Align yourself with the city well, make several passes and you have the potential to take out a whopping 14 blocks in your first pass alone. If you drop all your bombload in perfect conditions you can potentially drop as many as 36 city blocks with the 18x500lb alone, and add 4 more if you've saved up the cookie. That's an incredible potential to drop 40 city blocks!

Of course, most times it's more useful to leave the cookie at base, make two passes and realistically expect to drop about 18-20 city blocks with a not-so-perfect aim. It's still leagues ahead of any medium or light bomber. Survivability would be a whole different topic...

I don't know about other players, but the only bomber I'd take more to strats if the city block hardness was reduced would be the Ki-67, when I don't have time for a Lancaster flight or there's a notable Me-163 pilot on the roster  . Well, I kinda do that already...

[hitech]

Just a little question: Standard downtime only or modified downtime? For example when hitting (but not destroying) a HQ with the corresponding City strat at 50%(=HQ downtime 105 minutes) ... does the damage inflicted expire after 22.5 minutes (standard) or 52.5(modified) minutes?

Standard/base down time is used. I.E. 22.5 mins in your example

HiTech

[lyric1]

843 pounds of bombs? It takes 5-6 HE tank rounds to destroy a city block.

Seems a little off to need that many pounds of bombs compared to HE tank rounds.

[Lusche]

843 pounds of bombs? It takes 5-6 HE tank rounds to destroy a city block.

Not pound of bombs, but pounds of damage. You can kill a city block with as little as 5 50kg bombs, which is 550lbs of bombs.

[TheCrazyOrange]

What do you mean city blocks? I thought you destroyed individual buildings.

[lyric1]

What do you mean city blocks? I thought you destroyed individual buildings.

City strats are blocks.

[lyric1]

Not pound of bombs, but punds of damage. You can kill a city block with as little as 5 50kg bombs, which is 550lbs of bombs.

Oh.

[SmokinLoon]

Oh.

The weight of a bomb does NOT equal its weight in damage, with exception to two bombs: the 1000 lb bomb and the 500 kg bomb (500 kg = 1102.5 lbs in weight = 1100 lbs of damage). 

A good rule of thumb is the lighter the bomb the more efficient it is.  Meaning:

 a 100 lb GP bomb = 156 lbs of damage (1.56 X its weight)
 a 2000 lb GP bomb = 1718 lbs of damage (.86 X its weight)

A Mossi with 4/500 lb bombs = 2248 lbs of damage (562 lbs per bomb), vs a Typhoon with 2/1000lb bombs = 2000 lbs of damage (1000 lb damage per bomb).  Plus, damage can ultimately be spread over a larger area if so desired. 

[danny76]

It's a shame the Japanese didn't make any provisions to increase the load at the expense of performance. It had plenty to spare, and the Ki-67 could really be made great with an extra 1000lbs of bombs.

It seems to be a common theme with Japanese bombers. Of course when your industry would have trouble replacing lost units in a major conflict, I guess survivability is a greater asset. Live to fight another day and all that.

Not entirely convinced that Japanese military thinking at the time gave much credence to survivability, when the Japanese industry had reached a point whereby it was struggling to replace lost units, it sort of ordered it's pilots to crash their aircraft/subs etc into things

[guncrasher]

There is always one.....  

Maybe in years gone by there was a "morale" feature but not anymore.  As Lusche pointed out, currently the damage to the city affects only the downtime of the town buildings and HQ.  Nothing else.

Ordnance factory = ammo bunkers
Grunt Training = barracks (troops and field/gv supplies)
fuel factory = fuel tanks
radar factory = radar towers
AAA factory = auto ack at fields and towns

Hangers, convoys, barges, trains, shore batteries, manned guns, and fleets all have down times that are "hard" coded and can not be adjusted unless the hands of Zues and HTC come in and adjust the timer.  

and while we're at it, now is a GREAT time to dispel the old rumor that shooting/bombing the map room, or dropping friendly troops in to the map room, or doing the funky chicken dance near the map room, will "reset" the map room if a few enemy troops made it in, but not the required 10.  Only time will reset the map room.  Only time.  I believe it to be 15 mins, but I hope HTC graces us with their presence and comments directly.    

any other age old disparities we can put to rest in my wish thread????   

it was my understanding that you can bail out and kill the troops in the maproom.  however if whoever dropped the troops gets a new plane then his troops will also die.

I can still hear on range about how I dropped 10 and 8 made it in so I am bringing a jeep.  I dont think it works like that.

semp