Author Topic: Give Bombers More Incentive  (Read 1029 times)

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2002, 11:29:52 AM »
Some folks need to get off the bandwagon and formulate thier own thoughts. Thats not my opinion, just an observation.

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2002, 11:53:37 AM »
I would fly bombers, and drive GVs if there was more incentive....

like if they weren't so freaking gamey. That's incentive right there, actually having to know how to work the bomb sight and some real bomb dispersion and bullet dispersion.

As is there are only a handful of things you need to know to fly a bomber, take off, fly to the target on auto climb, drop bombs (very easily I might add), any fighters that engage you- you begin to turn using your rudder and pull very tight circles while happily pinging the attacking fighter, and then return to base.

Bombers are so easy, I don't see why they should get any perk points for anything they do.
-SW

Offline popeye

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2002, 12:09:55 PM »
Bombers are definitely easy.  A few things I'd like to see:

Required "straight and level" setup for bombsight accuracy, like the "30 second green light" in Brand WB.

More haze effect in the bombsight, so that pinpoint accuracy is lost above "historic" altitudes (20-25K).

More weather to make high altitude bombing less predictable.

No "You Are Here" AWACS map.  Let pilots navigate to target.

Crater effects.  If it is made harder to do precision bombing, misses should be worth something.  A cratered runway should be unusable for some length of time.  (Light planes could use the grass, but heavy planes should need the runway.)
KONG

Where is Major Kong?!?

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2002, 12:14:03 PM »
Agree popeye, on all points.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2002, 02:38:07 PM »
eskimo... you were reallay a teacher??  there is a big difference between writing well and comprehending what you read.

pop..  those ideas are all fine with me.
lazs

Offline VWE001

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #80 on: February 15, 2002, 02:56:01 PM »
I see by your fine typing skills youre a shining example of the California public school system!

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2002, 03:06:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VWE001
I see by your fine typing skills youre a shining example of the California public school system!


...he exclaims from the eskimo2 rooting section.

Offline -dead-

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2002, 03:14:07 PM »
I like the ideas here so far - but I honestly reckon that its time for a serious rework of the whole strat set up - you should make the whole battlefield situation more fluid & interdependent. It is time to drop the simplistic model & use a bit more complicated maths with more interdependence - and a lot more tagets.
ie instead of you bomb HQ therefore there's no dar at all, how about: local dar works - but only at close range, and bar dar shows only for the sectors round your launch/current field.  
We should have some real cities - those big cities with factories & power plants & HQs & docks in them. The ack is heavier, the right target is harder to find, the buffer cares a lot less which is the right target if it means hanging around in the ack longer. We should have different factories: aircraft factories, GV factories, food factories, train factories, truck factories.
You kill an aircraft factory: aircraft are harder to replace, so less are available of the planes that are getting killed - if your country has 100 spits and 10 hurris up, and only 25% get back - you need to replace 75 spits, but only 7 hurris - which is in shorter supply? (Sure, I reckon we should factor in a demand thing too - if 75% of the country fly spits, then output would concentrate on spits more & a stockpile (to build up supplies) - the stockpile can be affected by bombing hangars & capturing fields - more fields more stockpile, less fields less stockpile & capturing the nmes field with hangars intact = transfer the stockpile you took)
You kill a power station: power in that district should be affected - factories are less productive - so rebuild will take longer, less fast replacement of aircraft, less supplies of ammo, dar affected a bit maybe? Some of these effects are immediate, some take a while to be felt.
And to top off the dumb ideas of the day :D :
We should use perk points a lot more to regulate the availability of aircraft & GVs. ie - your aircraft factories are all in flames - add a perk or 2 to the most popular (as determined by the current numbers in your country) planes.
Or perhaps a quota system - first 50 n1ks are free, the rest are perked. You lose a "free" n1k, then it gets replaced at a rate of one every 3 mins - so for the next 3 mins 49 are free. You lose a fighter factory, the "free" n1ks only get replaced at a rate of one every 5 mins. You lose a power supply or a supply depot as well, it goes up to 6 mins.  No perk points left? Go fly an unpopular plane, it'll be free (Hurry while stocks last! ;) ). Perk points can be adjusted so they're easier to get, so it's less of a pain for newbies (or mebbe newbies get a set number of points to spend).
The more factors you add, the more complex it gets, but hopefully, the more complex you get the more realistic it gets. And the maths can probably stay simple enough to be doable (hey, I'm no expert), while producing a load of interesting nuances. Basically I'd want the whole Strat thing to be in 32-bit Grey, not black & white.

“The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” --  Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, June 5, 2006.

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2002, 07:35:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
eskimo... you were reallay a teacher??  there is a big difference between writing well and comprehending what you read.

pop..  those ideas are all fine with me.
lazs


Oops,
My bad.
I should have expected that you would not be able to make such a basic connection.
Reading and writing are very inter-related.  While it is expected that a person's reading abilities exceed their writing abilities, it is unlikely if not unheard of, for a person's writing abilities to exceed their reading abilities.
Tell me Lazshole, does it hurt to be such a tard?
Or are you to stupid to even know when to be embarrassed?

eskimo

Offline Sunchaser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #84 on: February 16, 2002, 09:46:31 AM »
Ah, err....shouldn't that be "too" stupid eskimo?

 I am not sure but there may be a misplaced comma there somewhere too.

Actually, getting back to the topic of conversation, if I had enough bombs in a B17 to take out all fighter hangers at a base I would resubscribe and do a tour just wasting fighterhangers.

Incentive enough plus the whining here would surely provide some classics.

I really hate Lancasters, lucky for furballers.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2002, 10:20:49 AM »
well... I guess if a man is known by his enemies then I should indeed be embarassed by this collection of mouth breathers.   Damn.... almost makes me miss ol wulfie and doomie.  

I am starting to understand why my daughter was an honor roll student and can't read and doesn't know what year (or decade)WWII was fought tho.
lazs

Offline ICKID

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #86 on: February 16, 2002, 11:45:40 AM »
Let me Guess, you think it's the teacher's fault.  After all , she is your daughter.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Give Bombers More Incentive
« Reply #87 on: February 16, 2002, 11:54:24 AM »
I believe that the teachers had something to do with her grade point average.
lazs