Author Topic: Defending the strats - a case study  (Read 4134 times)

Offline dmdchief

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2014, 01:01:47 PM »
I defend HQ and strats a lot, for quite a while with my machine that was all I could do as my frame rate was so low but now I know just how far they have to be away before I have a chance at them, THANKS VERY MUCH

SALUTE
ab8aac/dmdchief
HAVE THE COURAGE TO STEP UP AND LEAD AND THE PUBLIC WILL FOLLOW

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2014, 01:06:51 PM »
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.



Gotcha.  Sorry, i was not trying to hijack your post, I've always considered the HQ as part of the strats, i.e. "Targets of Strategic Value"
Wag more, bark less.

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2014, 10:35:27 PM »
There was a reason that the British invested heavily in large coastal radar stations - they needed the warning time to make interception possible.   The same thing goes here - we need real dar coverage - large strategic radars that can show something is coming from a long way off.   Our radar ranges here are laughable.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2014, 02:00:33 AM »
There was a reason that the British invested heavily in large coastal radar stations - they needed the warning time to make interception possible.   The same thing goes here - we need real dar coverage - large strategic radars that can show something is coming from a long way off.   Our radar ranges here are laughable.
Dot dar everywhere is not a good idea for the rest of the game. Perhaps a half-way solution is to have a long range radar at the strats that detects planes at over say 20k. This will not affect the tactical war, but will highlight possible high alt bombers. Give the high alt dar a different color to its dots. Make it destructible.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2014, 11:17:02 AM »
Dot dar everywhere is not a good idea for the rest of the game. Perhaps a half-way solution is to have a long range radar at the strats that detects planes at over say 20k. This will not affect the tactical war, but will highlight possible high alt bombers. Give the high alt dar a different color to its dots. Make it destructible.

I respectfully disagree.
Wag more, bark less.

Offline Someguy63

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2014, 11:20:51 AM »
Dot dar everywhere is not a good idea for the rest of the game. Perhaps a half-way solution is to have a long range radar at the strats that detects planes at over say 20k. This will not affect the tactical war, but will highlight possible high alt bombers. Give the high alt dar a different color to its dots. Make it destructible.

While I disagree with the high alt indicator, I do believe a long range radar at HQ would be better so it can be effectively defended.
Anarchy
#Taterz
-=Army of Muppets=-
"Imagination rules the world"

Offline thndregg

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4053
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2014, 11:30:15 AM »
There was a reason that the British invested heavily in large coastal radar stations - they needed the warning time to make interception possible.   The same thing goes here - we need real dar coverage - large strategic radars that can show something is coming from a long way off.   Our radar ranges here are laughable.

I'd at least like a chance at completing my objective using tactics and blind spots. I don't go for the "know-all, see-all" approach. I think the dar bar/dot dar system maintains a good balance. In my experience, especially on small maps, dar bar has well within our territory- right down to the launch base location(s)-  made the enemy aware of something taking place. Therefore, the enemy launched not long after to determine what was needed to stop us. Worked pretty well for them on small maps because there would be times we were still slow and climbing. Once we got to alt, we would box up into the "meat grinder", and try to maintain that for the duration if we could. There were times we still got torn apart even with escorts.

So, really, I don't see the need to change a whole lot with the current system. Part of what makes a fight fun is the uncertainty of what you may face. It makes you think.
Former XO: Birds of Prey (BOPs - AH2)
Former CO: 91st Bomb Group (H)
Current Assignment: Dickweed Heavy Bomber Group

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2014, 03:00:44 PM »
Dot dar everywhere is not a good idea for the rest of the game. Perhaps a half-way solution is to have a long range radar at the strats that detects planes at over say 20k. This will not affect the tactical war, but will highlight possible high alt bombers. Give the high alt dar a different color to its dots. Make it destructible.

I'd agree. But how about reducing base dar range and adding radar stations in between that can be taken out just like base dar.

Or another suggestion. How about when bombers life from backward bases we get a teletype.
"G2 reports bombers lifting from A-102 destination unknown"
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline dmdchief

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2014, 03:23:16 PM »
I'd at least like a chance at completing my objective using tactics and blind spots. I don't go for the "know-all, see-all" approach. I think the dar bar/dot dar system maintains a good balance. In my experience, especially on small maps, dar bar has well within our territory- right down to the launch base location(s)-  made the enemy aware of something taking place. Therefore, the enemy launched not long after to determine what was needed to stop us. Worked pretty well for them on small maps because there would be times we were still slow and climbing. Once we got to alt, we would box up into the "meat grinder", and try to maintain that for the duration if we could. There were times we still got torn apart even with escorts.

So, really, I don't see the need to change a whole lot with the current system. Part of what makes a fight fun is the uncertainty of what you may face. It makes you think.
I actually do defend the strats and the HQ a lot and part of the fun is trying to figure out where they are in a given sector when there is a dar bar.  THE HUNT IS THE THING !  oh and wondering if I am high enough, LOL

salute
ab8aac/dmdchief
HAVE THE COURAGE TO STEP UP AND LEAD AND THE PUBLIC WILL FOLLOW

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2014, 03:26:45 PM »

I'd agree. But how about reducing base dar range and adding radar stations in between that can be taken out just like base dar.

Or another suggestion. How about when bombers life from backward bases we get a teletype.
"G2 reports bombers lifting from A-102 destination unknown"

No.  I've already made note as I see their darbar appear at that rearward base and am keeping an eye on them as they ingress.  Not just them, as it's possible I won't be intercepting for an hour, but I know they are coming.  There is a lot of information to be had already with the tools we have now to use, and as I have said many times before, I'm not interested in easy.  No, i don't get to see them lift if the HQ is down, but that really isn't as often as some here lament.  I also, most of the time, call out on country channel for others to join in the intercept, or if you are a Knight you may at any time, PM me and ask what I see coming if you would like to check on what you might have missed.  Teamwork will overcome most adversity, including when the HQ is down.

When HQ is taken out, what we should see is country channel text light up with information from individuals to supplement the lost dar information.
Wag more, bark less.

Offline DubiousKB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1614
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2014, 05:08:22 PM »
Interesting discussion gents.

at the risk of looking noobish (not that i care), what about an air launch from a rear base to mitigate the interception rings detailed by Lusche.   I know it's not ideal in the scope of the MA, but is it a total no-no? Is there no way of implementing without balance?
56th Fighter Group -  Jug Life

Offline McShark

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2014, 05:57:01 AM »
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 still wonder why an HQ for example, responsible for the whole dar system of a country, does not have it's own "dar ring"? If you manage to spot the tiny blip the strats give when attacked and are able to scramble some rockets, you still face the problem of spotting any attacker. I repeatedly upped rockets to intercept an incoming raider, just to find out when I reached 30 k that it was a bomb-bailer driving in a set of lancs at 8 k...  :rolleyes:

Spread out strats are fine by me, I sometimes like to take a 152 to 40 k, full gas and circle reading dar bars or whatever. Yet, the chance to bring down a set of determined raiders are still pretty small, as I see a succesful intercept only happening when no bombs reached target. Maybe a small dar circle like 6 miles or so would improve the situation and balance it out?
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence. -Charles Bukowski
Gleams the blade,Shines my Honor
Tour 19 - 163 McShark
Tour 163 -      Barkhorn

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23936
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #42 on: September 06, 2014, 07:03:44 AM »
at the risk of looking noobish (not that i care), what about an air launch from a rear base to mitigate the interception rings detailed by Lusche.  

Doesn't matter. This analyis is strictly based on time. The time the interceptor (in this case a Ta-152H) takes to reach the target altitude vs the distance the bomebr covers in the same time.
It's somewhat simplified, as I didn't take into account wind speeds. But then, this wasn't meant to give the fighter an exact 'interception tool', but just to illustrate a problem he faces.







Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23936
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2014, 07:41:02 AM »
But it's all even more difficult. We have many maps, on which crucial factories are placed at practically indefensible locations near the front. This might even be very unbalanced between the countries as well. For example SMpizza:

SMPIZZA


Ammo factory right in front of an enemy 3.5 base. The other two countries have their ords factory far more removed to the rear.


SFMA


Even without A35 the AA factory has no chance being defended unless you put up a constant cap.


NDSILES


TT insures there are constantly darbars up in 9.9 and 10.9. A low/medium altitude bomber formation can easily go through the south of these sectors. No skill or rocket science required, when you cross into 11.9 to attack the AA factory it's too late for any defender to up.
He will possibly catch you if he tries, but only after the attack happened.


But why you don't just fly cap then?
Three hours downtime.
If you fly cap there, 'they' just will strike elsewhere. It needs only one or two sets to break the factory for a few hours. Flying cap would need like 3-4 players hovering over the factories for hours without any combat.

But it's the same with bases! You can't stop 25k bombers unless you fly cap!
Most bombers attackind bases fly lower than this, because with shorter downtimes of local objects and fluid battles it doesn't pay off as much to climb to 34k. Getting your hangars down for 10 minutes is also just a short time local effect.





IMHO it's again a matter of balance and concentration of combat (I will elaborate on that)

We had dispersed factories before, which often could, like these ones, easily be hit by medium bombers with little risk of being intercepted before the drop. But theres a big difference:

Old dispersed strats: Zone system, local effect only with also smaller impact  - Short factory downtimes (45 minutes, well resupplyable)
New dispersed strats: country wide effect, much harder impact on the bases - Long factory downtimes (180 minutes) - resupplyable, but only at a small pace (4 mins per drop)

These new settings had been great for central strats, which were somewhat more difficult to attack and required much more time investment by the buff pilots.
But then the strats were dispersed and not a thing was adjusted. You still have the same huge impact, but now often little chance to defend them at all.
Please take also into account that there had been much less strat defenders than strat attackers. With the strats all over the place, it's often like 1 player trying to cover them all the time.



And finally the the mission magnet:
The central strats, particularly on large maps, were a nice tool to create large bomber raids, it was even big enough for a nice B-29 mission. I personally loved battling against huge high alt escorted raids.
The largest single target left is the City, which can easily put to 0% by two B-29s alone. For any factory, two Lancasters or B-24 can do about the same.


Taking all of this into account, I'm all for this approach

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

That would leave still targets open to bomb with shorter ranged, more vulnerable bombers like G4M, He 111, Ju 88





I wonder if anybody actually reads all this wall of text...
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline cobia38

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Defending the strats - a case study
« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2014, 07:51:32 AM »
 you can please all the people part of the time,or you can please part of the people all the time.
 BUT YOU CAN NOT PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME  ;)











.


  Harvesting taters,one  K4 at a time