Author Topic: The bombers are gone (Read 503 times)

Revvin · « **Reply #30 on:** July 22, 2002, 10:46:35 PM »

I agree Easyscor, some of the suggestions you've made I asked for in the past, we're getting there slowly. I think you've slightly exagerated the ammount of buff's needed to close a small field though

Increasing rebuild time is a start and they have increased it for strat targets according to the latest help file, quite a lot higher it seems unless my memory misleads me.

Innominate · « **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2002, 02:03:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
lepaul... fluffs and fighters allways have had to fly the exact same distance to the fight. Oh... it might not be so easy to go back to the fluffs once you've seen air combat and tested your skills against others.
lazs

This is completly not true now.
For a bomber to have any accuracy in its drop, it needs to reach drop altitute(about 14000feet minimum), and then needs at least another 25 miles to reach it's target. Throw in the low climb rate, and speed, and you're going to be spending a long time to kill a couple of buildings.

Mino · « **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2002, 02:55:10 AM »

My take is this:

IMO it is the target structure, not the new bomb model that is kind of goofy.

What is a VH? It is a tent.
What is a FH or a BH? It is a wooden building.
What is a city building? It is a wooden building.

I think the only hardened targets in the game are the Shore Batteries

So lets say:

To kill a tent is 3k bombs
To kill a FH or a BH is 3k bombs
To kill a city building is one 100 pound bomb or a couple passes with 50 cals
To kill a SB is 3k bombs

This wacky system is how AH progresses as a strategy game. This worked very well with the old LGB bombing model. IMO it does not work very well the new bombing model.

The new bombing model is just one of the coolest things to hit AH. I just feel that to make it reach its full potential, the target damage model also needs to be changed.

IE: More targets!

There just needs to be many more ground targets that make buff raids a neccessity. For example; a small field would have 12 FH's, 12 BH's, 4 VH's etc....

Build the structure damage model so that 100 or 500 pound bombs will destroy these buildings. Make it so that an accurate bomb run leaves destruction in its path, but does not destroy the field. To destroy the field you will need multiple bomber flights, then JABO to finish it off.

Be cool! :)

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 23, 2002, 08:32:29 AM »

fluffers want to have more effect on the fighter war... they want to force people to play with them.

truth is... given a choice the vast majority would like nothing better than to ignore thje fluffs. The more you can ignor the building battlers the better I say.
lazs

Yeager · « **Reply #34 on:** July 23, 2002, 08:55:46 AM »

Done correctly level bombing through bombsight is challenging and fun. Its great to have this and other things to do besides fly around in circles.

Mox · « **Reply #35 on:** July 23, 2002, 08:59:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
given a choice the vast majority would like nothing better than to ignore thje fluffs. The more you can ignor the building battlers the better I say.
lazs

Lazs you pretending you have friends again?

If what you say is true that would mean the majority of ALL players would like to, as you say "ignore the fluffs".

Do you honestly believe this?

Revvin · « **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2002, 09:06:57 AM »

Borrowed from another thread:

US Airforce approximations for crater size

Bomb Weight Crater Diameter
250-lb GP 10 feet
500-lb GP 15 feet
1000-lb GP 35 feet
2000-lb GP 50 feet

A hit from a 550lb bomb

That kind of damage if it were to hit the side of a hangar would certainly cause it to collapse and if it were to go through the top then just about everything inside would be destroyed not to mention the hangar also being damaged enough for it to have to be pulled down if it did'nt fall down on it's own from structual damage. I'm not advocating that hangars should be destroyed by smaller loads but a concession to gameplay has to be made. If the ord needed to kill a hangar was lowered we would also see bombers used less and less and a heavy fighter would take down a hangar with ease.

StracCop · « **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2002, 09:31:25 AM »

I just wanted to add something to Easycor's eloquently expressed wish list: cratering runways.

A cratered runway should be unusable for some period of time, say 30 minutes. That wouldn't keep fighters from upping from the grass (unless it too were cratered outside hangars, etc.)...but it would make cratering more meaningful than it is now.

- Dave

Revvin · « **Reply #38 on:** July 23, 2002, 10:34:21 AM »

Agreed StracCop you might want to voice your opinion in this thread which was started on the topic of cratering runways. I could never understand why we don't have it here when they do in the 'other' sim that HTC created especially as AH does not suffer from the single spawn point problem 'that' sim had.

Karnak · « **Reply #39 on:** July 23, 2002, 10:43:08 PM »

Lazs,

You're sadly mistaken.

Bomber fliers want to have more effect on the war.

They couldn't give a damn about having more effect on on the fighters.

It is distinctly not the same thing.

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2002, 08:28:45 AM »

I don't think so karnak... but... even if that were true.. When they (fluffers)are talking about more ability to stop the ability of fighters to use an airfield or to force people to play with them.....then it is simply a matter of semantics. They are kidding themselves if they think differently.
lazs

Wotan · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2002, 08:51:13 AM »

karnak I must read different posts then you because most of the ones I read say the same thing as StracCop.

Quote

That wouldn't keep fighters from upping from the grass (unless it too were cratered outside hangars, etc.)...but it would make cratering more meaningful than it is now.

I understand you may not want that but it seems to me most of others do.

I agree with revvin that weakening the fhs (as with your suggestion in the other thread) will only make it easier and more attractive to jabos.

Also jabos have always been used and have always been more effective in the support of field capture. After all thats what they were designed for.

Bombers need strategic targets that matter. I made a suggestion in that other thread. Lazs made a similar one about bombing cities to the ground to trigger a reset.

Some how it always gets back to "how can bombers stop fighters". Which was never their roll.

Revvin · « **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2002, 09:16:08 AM »

Bombers were used as strategic and tactical weapons,you can't ignore the facts that airfields were bombed to push the enemy back further. This is not about spoiling some furballers fun it's about being part of a co-ordinated field capture and an arena setup where buffs have this historical role. Right now the MA is awash with swarms of gangbanging heavy fighters, it is they who tend to milkrun-gangbang a deserted field.

The large city suggestion will only drive bombers away out of boredom with only one viable target to destroy instead of the various roles they had in WW2.