My idea to give bombers a real role without hurting furballs

[Karnak]

The idea is to use field object durabilty as a representaion of manufacturing quality, not simply a gamey mechansim, but as a quasi-simulation.

OK, if you're still reading;), here is my idea in full.

My suggestion is to leave airfields laid out as they are to make them very Buff resistant. A few players in bombers shouldn't be able to close an airfield and hurt a bunch of other player's fun. I suggest that strategic targets be rearranged to make them easier for buffs to have an effect on. In addition I suggest that there be strategic targets that govern the durability of field objects as a mechanism to represent the reduced quality control from the bombed country's industry. I think this would work well because the field layouts would still make bombers ineffective against them and a field with structures reduced to only 25% of full durability would still be fully operational from the point of view of the fighters. The only time it would come into play is when the Jabo aircraft, something the defending fighters can do something about, try to destroy the field. This would only affect field objects, it would have absolutely no effect on the damage models of aircraft or vehicles. Under this system the bombers would not be limiting aircraft choice, fuel loadout or any of the kinds of things that directly affect fighters, but they would be making a real and noticable contribution to winning the war and working within an interlinked system.

This would allow the big bombers to work in tandem with the fighter-bombers, without having the big bombers directly porking the airfields. It would have minimal impact on the players who simply wish to furball because the bases would operate at full capacity regardless of their durability level. It would be a worth while target for the bombers and they'd feel they were making a difference because their efforts would directly, and noticibly, affect the success of the Jabo aircraft.

When I setout to come up with a new suggestion for a bomber system I set the criteria that it had to have minimal impact on the furballers, yet give the bomber fliers a valuable place in the war effort that had a real impact on the other players who are playing the "land-grab" game.  I think this system meets those criteria and I think it would be a system that both Lazs and SirLoin could enjoy.

(I orginally posted this idea in the Gameplay forum, but the traffic here is vastly higher)

[cajun]

Not sure if I understand what your saying, but I find when I'm just furballing, or when I'm capturing feilds its allways easy to find a fight, and if a feild is destroyed furballers usuelly just move to another feild, I enjoy both parts of the game, though I prefer stratigey/landgrab.

Again I don't know if I fully understand what your saying,
but if your saying feilds will allways be operational, I don't think its a good Idea, cuz there would be no way to get C47's in.

...Unless you are talking about balancing Strat&Furballing on the Pizza map?
If that is the case, I think a map size inbetween the old & new map sizes would be perfect (though I find old map sizes plenty big enough, I know some ppl prefer them bigger).

But you may have a good system... If I understood it

[Innominate]

What he means cajun is,
Fighter hangar takes 2500lb's of bombs to kill, badly bombed strat would reduce this accordingly, making them easier to kill.

Seems like a good idea except that the only targets which take more than 250lbs in bombs to kill are the hangars.

[Karnak]

cajun,

No, fields would still be quite destructible and Jabos would still be the prefered means to do so, however the bombers would have strategic targets that would reduce the toughness of the objects on the field.

For example, if bombers had damaged the industry by 50%, the objects on the field might be reduced to 66% of full durability.  Thus a hanger would take 1,650lbs of ordanance instead of 2,500lbs.  The exact numbers would have to be determined for play balance using data I don't have. Aircraft and vehicles would be completely unaffected by this.  Everybody on all sides would, as now, be using the same exact equipment.

Because the fields would be completely active, even with objects at far reduced durability, this system would have a minimum impact on the furballers.  Their statements, and in this case they are the authority, indicate that it is highly annoying to have a single player in a bomber(s) come in and destroy all of the FHs, ending their furball at that field.

Airfield layouts would remain as they are now to keep level bombers relatively ineffective at closing airfields.  Closing airfields would be left to Jabos, and Jabos, unlike bombers, attack at low level where the furballers are.  Therefore the furballers have a shot at stopping them, just as they do now.

This idea maintains airfield resistance to bombers so that the furballers can continue to take off.  It gives a meaningful strategic target that has an impact on the war, one that affects the players involved in the land-grab aspect of the game.  Having a meaningful type of strategic target would further keep the bombers away from the damage resistant airfields.


Basically, I thought about the reduction in quality that the Japanese and German equipment exibited late in the war.  There are two ways to look at that that I saw.  One, unfair and unreasonable in a game like AH, is that the bombed country's equipment performs worse and isn't as  reliable.  The other way is that the war becomes easier for the side that is doing the bombing.  That is workable if you make the war easier by a different mechanism than reducing the bombed country's aircraft and vehicle performance.  Reducing the durability of the airfield objects would make the war easier, without putting all of the bombed county's players at a constant and unavoidable disadvantage as their aircraft and vehicles all perform at full capability.

Thus, making the war easier is the goal of the heavy bombers.


Innominate,

Modifying the base durabilty of some objects might be a required part of this, but in the end the only thing that matters in a land-grab senario are the hangers.  Also, many people use straffing to destroy non-hanger objects and a reduction from 250lbs required to 175lbs required would be quite noticable.


Another thought just occurred to me, if the base durabilty were increased so as to make base closing and capturing more difficult tahn it is now, unless the strategic targets were hit, it would make the strat players even more inclined to hit the durability reducing targets.  Say, something like the following:

Right now a hanger requires 2,500lbs to destroy it.

What if full durability required 4,000lbs, but a fully bombed industrial base reduced that to 1,500lbs.  Of course there'd be many in between stages.  Just a thought.

This could be manipulated in many ways, but the basic idea remains the same, give the bombers a real role while keeping the furballers ability to take off and fight.

[Innominate]

Making anything harder to kill isnt the solution IMO.

Plus, keeping every strat target down for the sole purpose of making hangars easier to kill seems to be similar to the situation we have now.  Easier to take two jabos to kill a hangar, than to bomb every strat target.

I'd much rather see something  that caused effects immediatly noticable by players.  Strat being bombed should be something like HQ's being bombed, where everyone needs to worry about it, and to protect and/or resupply it.

Anything putting bombers into a position where they can't affect furballers or base-takers, changes nothing.  Bombers had a huge effect on the war, and should have SOME noticable effect in AH.

I'd like to see something along the lines of, factories and fields supplies being tied together in a way.  

Examples(Note: These are meant as quick thoughts, not actual suggestions)  I'd think that maximum damage at the factory would have a total effect of about 50%

AAA factory, when bombed that countries ack lethality will drop.
Radar factory, reduces range of enemy dot radar at fields.
Ammo factory, reduces total ammo load of planes, probably by a maximum of only 25%.
Fuel factory, Reduces available fuel at fields up to 50%, doesn't affect the usage of drop tanks.
Training factory, ???

Overall, fairly small effects most of the time, but still something that is easily noticed.

[eddiek]

I think Karnak has a good idea.
But, to be honest, there will always be someone who claims that the buffs just did a milkrun, "we were too busy furrballing to defend", then when and if a Jabo raid comes in and takes down the now weakened field, you'll still hear the same thing, "it ruined my fun", "strat potatos ruined it for me", etc.
Don't get me wrong, Karnak, I think you have a well thought out plan here.  But it all boils down to some folks will chose not to defend the strat targets essential to keeping their style of play going, and that choice will be painted as someone else's fault.
I've never fully agreed with the mentality of allowing buffs to come over undefended, when I had the power to at least go an challenge them (If you can ID them as a buff, you can try to stop them), then blame the buff drivers for shutting down the furrball.  Always has looked like pure laziness on the part of the fighter pilots that do it then come here and post about it.
So what if the furrball gets stopped for a few minutes?  If you want to keep flying, click on another field and take off again.  No "work" involved at all.  
Regardless, good idea, Karnak, maybe HT will study it and consider implementing it in AH.

[Joc]

Id rather not be restricted to bombing targets for 'bombers only' If I see an airfield that a lot of e/a are upping from Ill bomb it, if it means helping my countries war effort nearby. The bombers are not the problem,the furballers ARE. They dont do much for their countries war effort, dont see em escorting bombers,performing Jabo, all they seem to do is fly in circles gathering kills/perk points.
 With the new bombing system all it means is you have to organize a large op to an airfield to take it out, maybe we need a furball arena for the furballers to be dumped into?

[SELECTOR]

i think the best was to make buffing more effective and more fun is to allow blanket bombing of fields to work..make creaters on runway kill planes taking off. make it so when the air-raid siren is blowing fields and towns repair at half speed,(most of staff and citizens would be cowering in the shelters im sure)

remember dropping bombs was just not destructive but disruptive..

[Wotan]

all these suggestions imho are really nothing but more gameplay concessions for bombers.

how is bombing a building in sector xxx gonna weaken a fh accross the map? most structures take just 250lbs to kill. 110g, p47d30, fw190f8, p38, most navy planes can kill  hangers on their own.

You want these made "weaker"???   .

If anything heres what should be done.

Make the factory complexes larger with more structures. Each of these factory complexes produce xxx amount of materials. Total all this together you get total production for each country

ammo factory 20% (at full capacity)
fuel factory 20%
radar/electronics factory 20%
training / army bases 20%
aaa factory  20%
 (if i missed a factory just readjust the % but you get the point)

total 100%

These should have their own town/city nearby and their should be several of each around the map. (if we are moving to 512 x 512 maps).

Now I would like to see things like oil fields and raw material structures (mines wharehouses rtc)

All of this should be linked by rail and road. trains and trucks need to get materials to the factories which need to get processed into useable material that is then truck/trained to the fields.

Rail stations should be placed strategically and some day rail and road junctions that are "damageable"

All these facilities should be made capturable and heavily defended by aaa and flak. and protected by a vbase. Get rid of strat zones and do not divide up the counties into multiple fronts. (ie in the pizza map give each country its own slice)

If a country production falls below a certain level then reset the arena.

Field capture would still be in effect and if any country is reduced to 1 airfield reset would happen as well.

All fields should be resuppliable. Go back to way it was before where 1 m3/c47 repairs an airfield.

This would complete the strat model in ah and give the bomber pilots a reason to feel "useful". Furballers and guys just interested in instant quick fighter action can enter the arena and not worry that it will take 30 min to an hour to repair some fhs or if fuels at 25% since fields  can be easily resupplied by m3/c47s. Nothing else should be implemented to stop fighter to fighter combat. Its what most folks do in ah by far.

There will be a reason to hunt trains and destroy train stations. Theres will be an actual effect to bombing based on something more "real" then field capture. Make field capture harder add more flak/aaa to the towns and place a vh there (either move the one from the field closer or add another)

I'b personally like ah they way it is now. The minority of folks who fly bombers regularly in ah have always  wanted to feel "usefull" so I say in the interests of shutting them up please consider my suggestion.


Edit

Even destroying a factories production should not oimpact the fields. as longs as trains and trucks are running each field should get its "full supply" reducing production is only an added trigger for a reset.

Also structure down time ought to be linked to the amount of damage at its nearby twn. Bomb and kill the civilans in the town or dehouse them and they dont repair the factory as quickly. This will give lancaster pilots something to do.

[robsan]

The goal of this game is quite simple.
The Country that takes the most fields wins.

Every Computer Game lets you controll certain game objects to achieve this goal.
In Counterstrike you controll a soldier, in Age of Empires you control numerous objects (lets call them archers, men at arms, knights etc...).

HTC decided to use WWII objects that you can controll to achieve the games goal:
capture the most fields and win.

It's rather simple, isen't it?

Now, the role of the fighter in WWII was to protect friendly bombers, or destroy enemy bombers. The role of the bomber was to disable the enemies means of fighting back, thus enabling friendly ground forces to take the fields and win.

HTC's gameworld is rather open, so you can abuse the game's intent for your own personal prefernces, be it furballing or padding your perk point score, flying around as lone wulf or expressing your inmature views about just about everything on channel one...
and usually you'll get away with no, or just a minor penalty.

Consider yourself lucky.

Just don't come around here and tell me some buff ruined your fun, because that's the risk you take if you insist in doing what you do when you join a game that has one goal:
capture the most bases and win.

Bombers should thus maintain their ability to destroy fields so that the goon can cap..., what ya say? they ruined some furballers fun? too, bad... maybe next time he'll take an active part in the game... you know, capture the most fields and win...

[Wotan]

its the buffers who are complaining that thier fun is ruined read the thread.

You aint been around here long enough to know whats up. Almost all the bomber threads get started by some disgruntled bomber pilot talking about how under appreciated he is.

Well so what.

Now they actually have to do something to hit a target. What I suggest to is make them feel useful while leaving the majority to do what they want.

You dont "win" anything. It just starts all over again. The inanimate structures arent the enemy Theres a very limited amount of fun most get from beating up on umm.

[Revvin]

I'd rather see more realistically modelled ground damage, there are alresdy enough concessions for the furballers with hangars needing large ammounts of ord to be delivered with pinpoint accuracy or they don't die or the fact that craters have no effect on aircraft trying to takeoff.

[eddiek]

I gotta disagree with ya Wotan.  This thread was started as an idea of how to allow strat people (buff pilots in this case) to "coexist" with furrballers.
I don't ever recall seeing a thread subject about how a furrball "ruined" a buff pilots fun.  Half the fun of flying a buff is getting to the target.  The other half is delivering your ordnance where it can do some damage to the enemy emplacements.  Taking the chance of getting shot down before you can do what you set out to do is a risk understood by most buff pilots, and is considered part of the game.
It's the furrballers who can't accept the idea that if they ignore that buff overhead he might take out their fighter hangars and shut down their fight that are the issue here, IMO.  Letting that buff fly on unchallenged and unmolested is a risk, but they don't want to accept the responsibility for making the decision to ignore it, they just want it stopped or restricted without any effort from themselves.  
THAT my friend, is a concession to the furrballers, one that HTC has not made yet, thank goodness.
One more possible alternative to Karnak's proposal:

Place three to six bases, one to two from each country, within no more than 12 miles of one another.  
On one base from each country, make the FH's REALLY tough, like 10-14K each to destroy them.  You would have a perpetual furrball area, fields practically impossible to shut down or capture, almost guaranteeing unlimited and constant furrball action up to the last second before a reset.
Chances are, those two fields from each country would be the last ones active as a reset drew near.
No more drawbacks to this idea than to any other.  And it would give furrballers more time to do what they do without having to get involved in anything more than the endless furrballs, until the last moments.

[Vortex]

I think Karnak's suggestions are good ones. Moreso if the hardness is upped on exisiting structures thereby allowing it to be knocked back to, or below, existing levels by buff raids on strat targets. A suggestion and a couple questions though...

Suggestion:

City/strat layout should be tied to a "zone". That is to say that each group of fields in an area would have a strategic infrastructure tied to it. Go a few sectors over and you'll find a completely different strat/base. For gameplay purposes "strategic" effects need to be limited in scope imo. This may have been mentioned already but I only had time to glance over a few of the posts.

Questions:

1) How does one prevent against the uber-ostis? As it sits now, especially on something like the pizza map, one Osti is a far better choice than an entire squadron of B17's or Jabo's...its more deadly offensively against ground targets, faster to get to target, and more defendable. Point here is that if all else stays the same, at least on the pizza map, all you'd do is further negate the need for buffs. With hardened targets the uber-37mm of a single Osti would still take out an airfield structure without issue...or strat ones for that matter.

One suggestion would be that until the strat targets are down, a minimum of 75mm calibre would be required to take out a ground structure. This would apply to planes as well (i.e. no straffing towns if the strat target isn't weakened first). Also, don't allow GV's to spawn at any strat targets. Its an air combat game after all, leave certain things solely in the realm of the pilots.

2) Should a flight of jabos be able to take out the strat targets too? Just curious on that one.

[Wotan]

EDITED

its a pointless circle and not worth it to keep disscussing.

I hope ht keeps it like it is.