Defending the strats - a case study

[Greebo]

I doubt HTC are going to go back to a single strat city having just got rid of it. So what else could be done to rebalance the game?

Real radar's range increases with altitude and also for larger targets. So have the game generate a greatly increased radar dot radius for bomber formations, either all the time or for formations over a certain alt.

Hopefully we will get large cloud formations back in the MA in the new version. If so it might be possible to arrange a 50% chance of cloud cover over each strat at say 15K. Higher bombers would then be forced to try an alternate strat or make a second pass when it has cleared.

More vicious or variable high alt wind shear effects could be introduced that make very high alt bombing really inaccurate and so forces bombers down to where fighters have a better chance of intercepting.

[DREDIOCK]

Another solution to Lusche's point would be to make it near impossible for a single bomber formations or even a pair of formations  to have any effect on strats without coming in at a lower altitude to cut the time.

Harden the target

[DREDIOCK]

I doubt HTC are going to go back to a single strat city having just got rid of it. So what else could be done to rebalance the game?

Real radar's range increases with altitude and also for larger targets. So have the game generate a greatly increased radar dot radius for bomber formations, either all the time or for formations over a certain alt.

Hopefully we will get large cloud formations back in the MA in the new version. If so it might be possible to arrange a 50% chance of cloud cover over each strat at say 15K. Higher bombers would then be forced to try an alternate strat or make a second pass when it has cleared.

More vicious or variable high alt wind shear effects could be introduced that make very high alt bombing really inaccurate and so forces bombers down to where fighters have a better chance of intercepting.

I think as per my suggestion a couple of posts ago they should do both. That is have local and national strats. National would have a more drastic effect but be both more dangerous and difficult to achieve.
Another option to encourage defending these targets might be to have some sort of medal or award system for shooting down bombers within a certain distance of a strat target. People seem to like the achievement awards and stars they get now

[Randy1]

. . . Hopefully we will get large cloud formations back in the MA in the new version. If so it might be possible to arrange a 50% chance of cloud cover over each strat at say 15K. Higher bombers would then be forced to try an alternate strat or make a second pass when it has cleared.

More vicious or variable high alt wind shear effects could be introduced that make very high alt bombing really inaccurate and so forces bombers down to where fighters have a better chance of intercepting.

Well done Lusche.

Greebo is on the right track.  There should be a price  to pay for the bombers seeking high altitude safe haven by way of bomb hitting results.  

[dmdchief]

Greebo the only problem with the radar dot solution I see is that the reason we have limited local radar now was to simulate on the ground spotters because all the bases didn't have radar in WWII. But up to about 15k the ground spotters could identify type, approximate speed and alt of the planes.

[bozon]

None that anyone cares about. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. But do You see many people rushing to defend those targets? I dont

They people that do not care about the strats should not care about strats. Those that just want to fight and do not care about wining the map should not be forced to defend the strats. What we are discussing here is how can someone who wants to defend the strats do it - currently he often simply can't.

[Aspen]

I want guys hitting strats & HQ.  I want them to have a decent chance at being successful.  I just don't want the results of successful strat & HQ raids to be so hard to undo that people log off.  Later at night 5 people logging off makes a big dent in action.  Bombing strats, intercepting strat bombers, escorting strat bombers, resupping strats, killing guys who are resupping strats, escorting resuppliers is all good stuff. Long down times with no reasonable way to undo it is not.

[Easyscor]

Bombers:
Assumes three very typical cases:

Lancaster at 20k
B-24 at 25k
B-17 at 34k (maximum loaded altitude and much more prevalent than some might think)
B-29 at 30K and 34K as well.

I tested the bombers combat speeds with bombs, as well as the climbing time of the Ta 152H (Full initial WEP) to the respective altitudes.
I spare you the details and jump directly to

the results:

Bomber      min. distance
Lancaster      61 miles
B-24              75 miles
B-29 at 30k
& B-17 @ 34K   110 miles
B-29 @ 34k   140 miles

I have to emphasize again that especially with the very high altitude bombers, these are the bare minimum distances, only very few fighter pilots will actually have a chance to get the job done before the bombs are falling.

Nice post Lusche but it omits one thing.

Back in the day when I flew strat missions against the dispersed factories, I would make several passes plinking targets to make sure I dropped the whole factory. If I took a squadmate, we would kill (< 10%) more then one factory.
Back then, people knew you'd be sticking around to make multiple runs and we always had interceptors come up for extra fun.
Admittedly I haven't flown the MA in a couple of years, so maybe things are different now.

[thndregg]

I doubt HTC are going to go back to a single strat city having just got rid of it. So what else could be done to rebalance the game?

Real radar's range increases with altitude and also for larger targets. So have the game generate a greatly increased radar dot radius for bomber formations, either all the time or for formations over a certain alt.

Hopefully we will get large cloud formations back in the MA in the new version. If so it might be possible to arrange a 50% chance of cloud cover over each strat at say 15K. Higher bombers would then be forced to try an alternate strat or make a second pass when it has cleared.

More vicious or variable high alt wind shear effects could be introduced that make very high alt bombing really inaccurate and so forces bombers down to where fighters have a better chance of intercepting.

I love going after strats. I love it even more when there is a substantial degree of difficulty (interception, cloud cover, drift, etc..) What's a bomber mission without a fight? Boring... incredibly boring. The uncertainty of success, the fight, and the "fog of war" is the attraction.

The fighter guys love it, too. The escorts have something to protect, and the interceptors have an enemy mission to disrupt and destroy. Makes for great fun.

[Lusche]

Admittedly I haven't flown the MA in a couple of years, so maybe things are different now.

If you had flown against the dispersed strats several years ago, it had been the old zone strats. And yes, things had been very different at that time. A factory has now a massive prolonged effect on objects all over a country and are themselves down for a much longer times (3h).

[Zoney]

Lusche, great post sir, thank you.

I do have a question.  How many of the group of 3 buffs do I have to kill to diminish their impact on closing the HQ.  Assuming it is just one set of 3 and the HQ has not been previously hit.

I do love hunting buffs and it has been more difficult with the dispersed strats.  First, to be successful, what you need is patience.  Only then can you work on the actual intercept and defense.  It is a chess match at time, with some of the pieces hidden.  I thank all you buff drivers who also have the patience to climb enough to insure at least the possibility of success.  Your patience is greater than mine because you must remain focused on what is most likely just one objective, one target.  I have the luxury of being able to intercept anything that "strays" into my airspace.  You can't cover the whole map as an interceptor, but you can "stake out" some territory and defend that airspace.

Sometimes that makes me feel like I am a Spider with a 50 mile web, if you tickle the strings, the spider comes running

[Lusche]

I do have a question.  How many of the group of 3 buffs do I have to kill to diminish their impact on closing the HQ.  Assuming it is just one set of 3 and the HQ has not been previously hit.

If they are Lancs, 1 bomber.
In case of B-29s: Even after killing a drone the two remaining B-29 can, in theory, have enough raw destructive power to kill the HQ (2x40x500lb bombs =44,000lb of damage). But I don't know if that's practically possible at all (bomb dispersion, great distance between lead bomber & drone).

[Zoney]

Thanks Lusche.  Excellent information.

Kill 1 buff of 3 unless it is B29's and you have saved your HQ.  The task of defense is not quite as daunting if you understand this.

[Lusche]

They people that do not care about the strats should not care about strats. Those that just want to fight and do not care about wining the map should not be forced to defend the strats. What we are discussing here is how can someone who wants to defend the strats do it - currently he often simply can't.

I very much agree with this post.
I never would want a strategic target meaningful enough so everybody would have to defend them at all cost. I have always liked the sandbox approach of the MA, with the players abillity to play the game on so manny diferent ways & levels at the same time.

The MA should provide the players with the abilty to fly massive long range missions with a purpose, just goof around in furballs, enjoing themselves in tank combat or organize combined offensives.

[Lusche]

Thanks Lusche.  Excellent information.

Kill 1 buff of 3 unless it is B29's and you have saved your HQ.  The task of defense is not quite as daunting if you understand this.

Actually this thread was not about the HQ, but more about the other strats. HQ is a different topic with a different dynamic and conditions.