Constructive ideas to make level bombers useful

[Karnak]

It seems to me, based on the multitude of threads on the subject, that the current bomber model (which I like) doesn't work well with the current targets/gameplay.  The new bomber system wants to be used in a historical fashion, aka dump all the eggs in one pass and get the hell out of Dodge.  However, it seems that the players who are being most successful with it are still being forced into the unhistorical position of hanging around, making multiple passes.  Those passes take a long time now because the aircraft's speed must stabilize before the bombsight can be calibrated.  All of this sums up to Jabo aircraft being much more damaging to the targets on a per player/time basis.


What are some possible solutions?

Well, lets start by saying what we know is not going to happen.  HiTech has said that infrastructure will never affect the simulation side of things.  Bombing fuel will not globally reduce a country's fuel quality, nor will bombing reduce aircraft/vehicle reliability.  This makes a lot of sense to me, from both a modeling point of view and a gameplay point of view.   Modeling chaning performance for every unit might be a major bit of work.  From a gameplay point of view, people don't want to fight from a position of disadvantage that is beyond their control.  Degrading a country's unit performance would also set it up for a cascading failure and, while realistic, that wouldn't be fun.

So, what does that leave us?  Certainly it means that solutions must be found exclusively within the gameplay mechanics.  Lets look at some possibilities and their advantages and disadvantages.

• Redo the targets to be more "bomber friendly".

This may be the most obvious path to go, but is it really best?
Pros: It would, done ideally, return things to how they were previously with level bombers able to do significant damage.
Cons: It would return things to how they were and would require lots of work from Superfly and Natedog.  Do we really want bombers to be primarily anti-field?

• Make strategic targets more important by making the time delays bigger.

Making it so that having a strategic target completely destroyed would prevent any respawning of that target's item and much longer delays for damage to the target might make strategic targets worth hitting.
Pros: This would probably be the easiest for HTC to impliment.
Cons: It doesn't solve the need to make multiple passes.

• Make strategic targets global controls for their item in their sector.

If the fuel factory at 125 percent (just like a field's) allowed all fields in it's sector to used 100% plus drop tanks and a fuel factory at 25% (destroyed) allowed the fields within its sector to only use 25% fuel the strategic target would be worth hitting.
Pros:It would make the strategic targets very much worth hitting and defending.
Cons: It comes dangerously close, perhaps entering, to the kind of things that HiTech said would not ever happen in AH.  The ability to limit something as critical as fuel at so many bases by destroying one factory complex is almost certainly too powerful. It doesn't solve the need to make multiple passes.

• Make towns tougher.

This would be a way to make bombers more useful by making Jabos less useful.
Pros: It would be very easy to impliment.
Cons: It would make base captures rarer.  It would make bombers like the Boston Mk III and Ki-67 useless as the only target they can really hit right now is the fragile town. It doesn't solve the need to make multiple passes.

• Strategic targets governing the durability of field objects.

If there were strategic targets that the big bombers could hit that would reduce the durabilty of the item they govern in their sector it would be a valuable target, but not one that would affect the simulation side of the game.  It would be noticable by all players, yet not eliminate the ability of players to compete.
Pros: It would be a useful target to hit. It would have an impact on the game. It would make base captures easier. It would not affect the ability of people to compete by removing the FHs or fuel.
Cons: It would make base captures easier. It doesn't solve the need to make multiple passes.


My preference would be for the strategic targets to be rearanged to make hitting them more effective and adding stategic targets that would govern the durability of field items.  I think that would have the effect of pointing the bombers towards the strategic targets instead of the fields (something the fighter boys want) and allowing the bombers to have a significant impact on the course of the war (something the bomber boys want).


What I'd like to see in this thread is constructive ideas to improve the bomber related gameplay.

Thoughts?

[tgnr2001]

Well thought out good ideas    

I already posted this on another thread, but since this thread is looking for ideas, how about if we could control 3 to 6 buffs instead of just 3.. and could control formation (box, "V", whatever"), then we'd have the choice of spreading bombs over wide area (fields) or concentrate attack (towns), and the maps wouldn't need to be changed.

tgnr

[Innominate]

I'm for re-arranging all targets including fields, as well as making strat targets more important.

Targets would be arranged so that one type of object could be killed in a certain number of passes, but so that only that could be. i.e. kill all of a fields fuel, but not be able to hit anything else.
Small field, one pass per object type
Med field, two passes
large field, three passes

Strat targets should be arranged like cities are now, lots of targets, densely packed.  Instead of individual buildings coming back up after x minutes, the whole thing should rebuild slowly, one building after another, every x minutes.  There should also be a significant effect on rebuild times.  Enough of an effect that people will notice when thier strat has been bombed without having to look.  Bombed strat should be almost like bombed HQ's, you should be able to tell its down,  and they should be worth defending.

[Shiva]

I like the idea of the strat targets decreasing durability of the field targets; that gives a reason to go for the big targets.

Another mechanism that would be annoying to players victimized by it, but wouldn't be as damaging to overall play as porking field status with the destruction of strategic targets is to make damage to strategic targets perk your loadout. For example, if you completely destroy a fuel factory, each 25% fuel past the first 25% costs a tenth of a perk point; drop tanks cost a quarter perk point. The basic weapons load is free, but additional ordnance costs fractions of perk points.

It would also be interesting to see perk points awarded for mission kills as well as shootdowns.  If someone takes up a P-47 loaded with bombs and rockets, and you bounce them before they get anywhere near a target, making them jettison their ordnance to be able to defend themselves, then you've achieved a mission kill against them, even if you don't shoot them down. Define some large area for targets -- a half mile around an airfield, VH, city, or town, and something like 500 yards around a GV, and if they can't get their ordnance to hit within that distance of the target, the closest enemy plane gets a perk point bonus for making them throw away their ordnance. It shouldn't be much -- a fraction of the value of shooting the plane down -- but there should be some way to credit pilots for preventing an enemy from completing their mission.

[Hooligan]

I would much rather see strategic bombing have a large effect on winning the war, while having absolutely no effect on a country's ability to fight.

People play this game because they want to fight other players.  Limiting their fuel or choice of aircraft due to the "strat" system is bound to irritate some players (like me).  I don't want to have to be limited to a 25% fuel load or to have to fight doras and mustangs in a p-40 because of the "strat" system.

Here is an example of a simple system that does what I suggest.

Suppose each country had 10 cities/factories and 10 airfields.  A country "loses the war" when it suffers a combination of destroyed cities and lost airfields that equals 10.  In other words: If buffs destroy all 10 of your cities you lose, of if all 10 of your airfields are captured you lose, of if buffs destroy 6 cities and you lose 4 airfields you lose.

Strategic bombers should be provided with strategic targets that strongly affect the outcome of the war.  Possibly, bombing strategic targets (enemy factories for example) should affect the enemy's STRATEGIC capabilities:  i.e. damaged factories might reduce maximum bomb loads for buffs.  Likewise, the enemy's tactical capabilities (radar, vehicle and fighter ops) should be unaffected by damage to the strategic targets.

The goal is to give the "capture the flag" guys and the "furballers" a way to peacefully co-exist.  If you care about winning the war, then you concentrate on destroying the enemy's cities/factories and hurting their bomber capabalities so they can't do the same to you.  If you could care less about the strat system, then what the strat guys do won't kill your fuel or radar or otherwise prevent you from having a good time in some dogfights if you only have 45 minutes to play.

Hooligan

[Karnak]

Hooligan,

I agree with you about limiting aircraft types available, and any global affects on fuel or ordanance.  Those things would simply harm the fun of the game.

Where I think your idea misses is in completely separating the two activites.  I don't think that bomber fliers want to have no effect other than reseting the map, and that's what you describe.  There needs to be a tangible effect on the game, but one that doesn't stop the fighter fliers from having their fun.

I think that affecting overall object (not unit) durability might very well meet both requirements.  The bomber fliers would be helping by making the Jabo flier's jobs easier, but there would be no single bomber flier at 20k stopping fighter ops from any field.

[Duedel]

Karnak thx for ur well thought post. I agree with u that bombing should be more "interesting". So here are my points of view:

• Redo the targets to be more "bomber friendly".

Yes, but only make strat targets bigger, make them to what they should be real huge complexes of buildings! Anyone remember our Depots? That were nice targets for carpet bombing.
Don't change the fields.

• Make strategic targets more important by making the time delays bigger.

Yep, why not sounds good to me and in combination with bigger targets it would be a very easy way to make bombing more meaningfull.

• Make strategic targets global controls for their item in their sector.

Ummm, I think thats a really great idea but IMO if u make strat targets control their items in the whole sector its to much impact. A sector is really huge. So why not combine a few strat targets geographically in an area and let them control only 1/3 of the fields in a sector (maybe call this STCS (strat target controled subsectors)). Add  2 or 5 manable 88mm directly beneath the strat targets so that we have real flak fire there. I mean u only have to look at the reality to make those things "interesting".

• Make towns tougher.

Yes make them tougher for machineguns and cannons but not for bombs and rockets!

• Strategic targets governing the durability of field objects.

I don't like this idea cause it's to gamey for me.


Thats it. I really hope the new bombing system remains like it is but gets the targets it needs.

[Wotan]

Buffing works well they way it is know. Practice and learn your skill. A lanc with the 4000lb can level a twn easily. B17 with 500s can salvo at 5 and kill a twn.

I rarely fly bombers and most of the time I get shot dwn when I do. But the problem with bombers isnt the site or their ability to effect gameplay (thats a good thing) its the fact that they are to weak imho. Their defensive fire is more then capable of killing fighters but the buffs themselves are weak. I have killed all 3 bombers in 1 pass with minimal ammo. Wingtips seem to "jump off of them.

The formations and sights are great.

No way would I want them to snipe off individual structures from alt. No way would I want 1 buff (or even 3 buffs) to come in and ruin an airfield.

My advice find a country mate and practice.

ps Seems the current factories/cities and such are unkillable. Several squaddies dropped on a training facility. Direct hits and killed nothing. We also straffed the ack at the ammo fact n of 6 to knock it down to keep the attackers hitting 6 from running to it. It wouldnt die.

[Karnak]

Wotan,

I agree that the current field status is fine.  Bombers shouldn't be able to easliy close them.  I like the new sights much more than the old onse.  I've flown more bomber sorties this Tour than I have in a long time, and there is no way I would advocate returning to pinpoint, lazer guided accuracy.

However, there needs to be a target that bombers are useful for hitting.  The town can be completely annilated by a 110G-2 or Mossie much, much faster than a B-17 or Lanc formation can hope to do it.  Towns aren't the target we need.

We need meaningful, and hitable, strategic targets.  Other than the HQ, those simply don't exist in AH at this time.

EDIT:  This isn't about my ability to hit targets.  I flew a Ki-67 mission last night and missed for the very first time.  Hitting isn't the problem.  Condecending statements about practicing is just a strawman method of changing the subject.

[Shiva]

As a compromise between having the strat targets be functionally useless, which honks off the bomber pilots, and having the strat targets control availability of supplies at an airfield, which honks off the furballers because they can't take up the planes they want, how about modelling the reduction in supplies as a reduction in immediacy?

What this means is that for every fraction (say, 25%) of each strategic target supplying a base that gets destroyed, there is a delay of, say, five seconds between your clicking 'Fly' and your appearing on the field. This represents the fact that, with the main supply destroyed, you're not getting supplies in easily-loaded packages.

I.e., if your fuel base is up, fuel is available in tanker trucks that can fill a plane quickly; if the base is damaged, the field gets its supply in 55-gallon drums that have to be pumped individually into the planes. You want to take off, but your plane isn't ready yet; you have to wait for it to be ready.

This won't affect your plane's weapon and fuel loadout, so once you're in the air, you've got the same plane you would have had if your ammunition factory hadn't been levelled; it just took longer for the armorers to load it out.

This would give a perceptible advantage to whacking strategic targets when capturing fields by slowing down the shoot-down/re-up cycle at fields supplied by the strategic targets, while a five- or ten-second delay isn't going to mean much when you're taking off from a nearby field and have to fly for five minutes to get to the field being attacked.

With the current rebuild times, you would still be wanting to run groups of four or more people to a strategic target if you wanted to be sure of taking it down completely, or running multiple missions to hit it repeatedly to keep it down. And protecting your ability to re-launch quickly from a field being attacked gives the defenders a reason to go up after the bombers hitting their strategic targets.

[LePaul]

Id love to see towns all become the size of the Depot bases that were introduced in v1.09.  Right now, Ostwinds can wipe out a city in mere seconds.  Make the city larger, add in some tougher targets inside of it (so that single ostwinds aren't all that's needed) and that gives a somewhat hardened city too tough for a sole Ostwind to knock in, and requires some heavier JABO/Buff ordinance to take down.

Possibly toss in a mannable ack or two?  Or Stick a VBase in there?

Just a thought...

[Pei]

I like Hooligan's idea. When I want to furball I don't care about resets too much (in fact a reset makes my life easier as I get nice fresh unporked fields to play with). When I'm interested in strat I'm aiming for a reset (or preventing one). I think making strat target damage contribute to resets is good way of encouraging the use of bombers (and interceptors for that matter).

Base capture should still be the heart of the reset but if a countries city and HQ are at 25% (just as an example) perhaps all you need to do is to reduce that country to 5 bases (or 10 or whatever some balancing number would be) instead of 1.
Furballers can happily go on thier way but now the mission planners might start making some big buff raids (and look to recruit those master bombardiers who can calibrate a bombsite).
In defence thye would have to think of putting up a group of interceptors when they see a big raid inbound.

Getting the balance right would be tricky but i think it could be done.

[Pei]

An interesting variation on Hooligan's theme:
Perhaps strat damage could work against your o bigtoery (rather than for the country fighting against you):
Strat damage could count against you when the winner is to be decided for a reset: if my country has only 25% HQ (just for the sake or argument) then perhaps my country counts as having less bases than it really has for the purposes of working out who won the reset. This could mean the second largest country could possibly win if it has less bases but has inflicted a lot of strat damage on the largest country. An laternative or addition to this could be that if a countries is HQ 0% it can't win a reset at all (or needs 20% more bases than the second largest for example).

[Wotan]

it may sound condecending to someone as overly sensative to you but how many threads have you started about the bomber model?

I agree we could use large targets for the bombers but thats a problem for a terrain Builder. The terrain editer is available to everyone. I admit I dont have the patience to be a bomber pilot its boring. But it was in real life.

If as you say you hit your target then there are what 100 fields on a 256 x 256 map 2/3 of which are nme. 75 twns to hit plus factories towns and cities. You could spend a whole day just bombing these targets. Also as kronos has shown even hitting airfields can be relatively succesfull.


Bombers should not have any instantaneous impact on gameplay. Not by sniping like we had prior to 1.10 or by killing resources. It took how many years and how many bombing sorties to have a true effect on the german war industries?

Then look at real life bombing accurracy. If you just want a couple of meaningless structures to go "boom"  just to satisfy you then I dont think anyone has a problem.

But the bombers impact of the main should be kept at about the same level it is now.

[Karnak]

Wotan,

Stop being intentionally dense (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).

It isn't a job for the terrain editors, its a job for HTC.

You obviously didn't read my original post as you are simply using this as another soapbox to rail against the "fluffs" that simply want to ruin your fun.

I agree with you that a player, or a small group of players, using bombers should not be able to close an airfield.

I don't want a return of the lazer guided bombs.  I much prefer the current system, thank you.


Let me ask you this, if it is correctly setup now, why didn't the Allies simply use Mosquitoes and P-38s to destroy Germany's strategic assets?  If AH is correct, that would have been much, much more effective than trying to use Lancs, Forts, Liberators and Halibags.

The key thing we need is balance, and that absolutely is not what we have.  The fact that you and Lazs think the current balance is spiffy and fine is absolute proof of that.  The bombers need to have an effect, right now they are easier to kill than they were and have vastly less effect than they did.  I don't think they should ever have the kind of effect that they used to, but there needs to be a valid purpose for them.


As to you're redicules aplication of reality into a vastly compressed MA, you're off your rocker.  WWII lasted 6 years.  A war in the MA is considered very long if it lasts 6 days.  6 hour wars are not unheard of in the MA.  It is reasonable to compress the time that it takes to have an effect by hitting strategic targets in such an environment.


You are railing against the idea that anything is wrong, and saying that any such suggestion is whining.  When I tried to come up with a fix, you and Lazs figured very, very high in my considerations.  I tried to come up with an idea that would have the absolute minimal effect on the game you guys like to play while giving bombers a real use.  I see that that is wasted effort now.  You and Lazs want only to eliminate any other kind of gameplay, and no idea, even one that bends over backwards to accomadate you, can be tolerated.