The Hooligan Bomber Proposal

[dtango]

I just wanted to pull a few nuggets from other threads and also focus in on a single proposal that I thought had a lot of merit that Hooligan and a few others pointed out.  Sorry for not giving anyone else credit but Hooligan's comments stuck out to me so I'll just label it that way .  

KEY LEVEL BOMBING GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
Summarizing nuggets and thoughts from other posts this is a list of what I believe are the key principles that should guide the employment of level bombers in the MA:
[list=1]

• Immediate impact as a result of level bombing
• Providing a role for level bombers suited to their capabilities (e.g. carpet bombing etc.)
• Fit within the MA gameplay ecosystem without adversely impacting the natural balance

In my opinion a reasonable use for level bombers should be designed to these parameters.  It is true that you can't always satisfy everyone but I think if you designed to the above you would have reasonable success in providing the right balance for the vast majority of players in MA ecosystem of different styles of gameplay.

FOOTNOTES TO GUIDING PRINCIPLES:

• #1 and #2 above in my opinion are the primary factors contributing to the enjoyment of level bombing.  Infact I believe much of the ire with 1.10 bombing changes are related to the increased difficulty or reduction in #1 and #2 with the new bombing model.
• Specific details of implementation might vary from one idea to another but I think in general the 3 pinciples need to be satisfied regardless of the implementation if it is going to be successful.
• My opinion on the popularity and success of the MA is due to the fact that it is a diverse gameplay ecosystem that feeds off of itself and is in pretty much of a balance regarding different styles of gameplay.  
• In the MA ecosystem, I think an important point is that each of the different "species" of  gameplay styles feed off of and need each other which creates the critical mass of players in the arena and specifically the various battlefronts.  Separating these species would cause a breakdown in the ecosystem and in my opinion an unwise thing to do.  Equally unwise is to give one species in the ecosystem the ability to adversely impact the existence of another species.

THE HOOLIGAN BOMBER PROPOSAL:
I really like the idea that I'm attributing to Hooligan.  The proposal is essentially allowing strategic target destruction to directly impact the victory/defeat conditions in the MA war.

Specifically...  
[list=1]

• Change the defeat equation to:  Defeat = # of fields left + % of country's strat targets destroyed.  Defeat conditions can be dynamic in the sense that the "defeat" value can be reached by different permutations of fields left + % of strat destroyed.
• Conversely the country with the most fields and the highest number of accumulated strategic target destruction points is declared the winner.
• Making strategic targets various sizes (like air fields) so that various sizes of bombers formations can participate in achieving victory conditions.
• No change in existing bombing model using formations and carpet bombing
• No changes to the existing strat model affecting rebuild and resupply times etc.

My opinion is that Hooligan's general premise is a pretty elegant modification to the gameplay in the MA.  It satisfies all 3 guiding principles above.  Level bombers are given immediate feedback and results for their bombing.  A role for level bombers is carved out that matches their capabilities for destroying strategic targets.  The balance of lifeforms in the MA ecosystem is not adversely affected.

My opinion on the deficiency in the current strat model for bombing is the lack of immediate and direct impact to the MA war for hitting strat targets.  Save for disabling country radar in my opinion the other strat variables such as rebuild, and resupply times etc. didn't provide enough immediate feedback for bombing.  The laser guided bombing of fields provided a role for level bombers that provided immediate impact albeit sometimes to the chagrin of other styles of gameplay.  However once the laser guided bombing disappeared we are left with the ire of the level bomber crowd since their efforts are only indirectely related.

Anyhow, I thought there was a good idea that might have gotten lost in all the flurry of discussion I wanted to bring back up.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[popeye]

My definition of "immediate and direct impact" is:  my actions result in someone, somewhere, cursing in the language of his choice.  Bombing for points doesn't qualify.  YMMV.

[john9001]

i think tango is a tech manual writer

[dtango]

Popye- what about bombing to win a reset without having to take all the fields?

John9001- actually I'm not .  I'm not sure how to take your remark though- as a complement or as an insult .

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Karnak]

Sorry, but I think any idea that gives bombers a completely separate and unrelated sandbox to play in is a bad thing.  That's all this does.  The bombers would have no actually effect on the war, they'd simply be given a magic "we win now" button.

I would never fly bombers in that environment as they would be completely unlinked from the rest of the game.

What it comes down to is this:

The journey is the fun part, the destination is just the incindental end of the journey.  Giving bombers the ability to bypass the journey and just get to the destination does not make them fun.  It makes them boring.

[john9001]

tango , when i started to read your first post i got the same feeling i get when reading tech manuals, >>>>pragraph  A refers to sec 2 of 3rd paragraph except if subsec 4 of para 1 applies<<<< then my eyes glaze over , i get a headach

[popeye]

To many (most?) players, winning the war means nothing.  So, bombing only to hasten a non-event would have little interest for those players.  Might as well have fighters shooting at target drones to get enough points to "win the war".  We play a multiplayer online game to intereact with the other players -- "immediately and directly".

[lazs2]

hmm karnak and pop.. not sure I understand your premis.  Are you admitting that no one will play with the bombers if they don't have to?  I mean.. No one want's to attack them and they are no fun to "fight" so you want them to be so obnoxious (which they were) that people are forced to deal with em?   How is that not making them a seperate (and despised) element of the game?  They would become like in pre 1.10 the only element that could have a huge effect on dozens of players.   fighters have to earn every kill and a kill does not effect the fitghter war or war at all.

lazs

[popeye]

My premise:

People play a multiplayer online game to directly interact with other players.

HTC's stated gameplay design is:  "Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High".

Players are free to ignore or pursue the objective of territory capture, but tacitly accept it by selecting the Main Arena environment to play.

HTC has included player-controlled fighters, bombers, ships, ground vehicles, and gun emplacements in the game, to be used at players' discretion.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by lazs2
hmm karnak and pop.. not sure I understand your premis.  Are you admitting that no one will play with the bombers if they don't have to?  I mean.. No one want's to attack them and they are no fun to "fight" so you want them to be so obnoxious (which they were) that people are forced to deal with em?   How is that not making them a seperate (and despised) element of the game?  They would become like in pre 1.10 the only element that could have a huge effect on dozens of players.   fighters have to earn every kill and a kill does not effect the fitghter war or war at all.

lazs

Bombers aren't the real enemy, Lazs.  Not if we use you're logic and criteria for assesing worth to MA enjoyment.  If you want to single out the most evily impactful unit in the game, one where a single player can impact the activities of dozens of other pilots in the literal blink of an eye, then draw a bullseye around...the C-47.  Even in pre-1.10, a single bomber could not, in general, completely shutdown a field...even the mighty Lancaster.  Indeed, even back then the effects of bombing were temporary, and could be reversed to a certain extent by friendly supply drops.  A Goony Bird, on the other hand only needs to fly straight and level over a field-town and push a button to completely deny the field's owners use of that field.  How easy and skill-less is that?  They can also swoop in and undue the work of numerous JABO's by dropping supplies and rebuilding the fields in a fraction of the time it would otherwise take.  That's it!  It's the Goons! The Goon is the real enemy of furballers and the MA! GET RID OF THE GOONS!!!

What? Goons are okay, you say? Being slow and completely unarmed, they are rediculously easy to kill, making them even less challanging (theoretically) to kill than bombers.  Yet kill them we do, and with more relish and satisfaction than any other airborne target.  Whether defending a base under attack, or in the last stages of prepping a base for capture, the appearance of an enemy Goon will make almost any fighter pilot forget the enemy fighter he's saddled up on and break low for that C-47.  And he'll likely be racing a half dozen fellow countrymen for the "honor" of killing that glorified delivery van.  Again I ask you, why?  We almost never hear the furball crowd decrying the presence and horrendous impact of C-47's, yet let a bomber pilot ask for a larger role in the MA and you guys are all over him like ugly on an ape (for any apes out there, I meant that in the nicest way;)).

The answer to "Why?" is simply this: We kill them because if we don't they will have an immediate and negative impact on the battle we're waging over a base.  In plain language, we kill them because we have to!  That's what the bomber pilots want...an immediate and decernable impact on the fighting.  Once upon a time, a cloud of buffs heading for the HQ resulted in an immediate defensive response, because to let them hit the HQ would cause immediate loss of radar coverage.  Even more contested were strikes against the city, because they increased the effect of follow-on strikes against the HQ.  Killing bombers took more time than killing a goon, but was at least worth doing.  
I personnaly enjoy killing bombers.  Not as much as killing an enemy fighter or goon, but it can be challanging nonetheless.  They're easy enough to kill if you have plenty of time to set up the attack, but if you're hurridly trying to get them before they drop their bombs it can certainly get hairy.

No solution is going to be met with complete joy by both camps.  However, I think we can find a way to make bombers more impactful without ticking off the furballers too much.  First, reduce the impact of guns on structures, such that they are almost impossible to destroy with fighter-calibre guns alone.  Adjust the size (number of structures and footprint) of field towns such that it takes perhaps two players in tri-formations of heavy bombers to destroy a town, but takes four or five of even the heaviest JABO's to do the same.  Finally, and most controversial, make field supplies dependent on a steady flow of supplies from the factories.  Cut off that supply line, either by hitting the factories or killing the convoys (gives JABO's another role, too), and you cause a gradual reduction of fuel/A2G ordnance/troops/AAA/etc available at that field.  

Mind you, it must always be possible to take off with a minimum of 25% fuel and ample gun ammo (if the hangers are up), just as it is now.  In other words, bombing of supply lines and supply sources can't prevent you from defending your fields...only from using them as offensive bases.  Likewise, allow supply drops to temporarily restore supplies at fields.  The implemenation of strat-zones limits the affect of hitting strat targets to only the fields in that zone, so this will not have global consequences as it once would.  My two cents worth.

P.S. It was interesting to finally meet Lazs in person...he's actually a nice guy...he just enjoys a bit too much getting other peoples' panties in a wad on the BBS.  His evil twin only emerges when he types, I guess:D.

[runny]

Originally posted by Sabre

What? Goons are okay, you say? Being slow and completely unarmed, they are rediculously easy to kill, making them even less challanging (theoretically) to kill than bombers.  

I think the reason pre-1.10 buffs bothered me more than goons, fighters or jabos, was that they were the only ones that could do serious damage, while remaining effectively out of harm's way.

At 30K or more, bombers in Aces High face very few risks.  Before 1.10, in exchange for this high-altitude sanctuary, bombers had to trade nothing.  They could fly in the thin air where they outclassed almost all fighters, with no loss of offensive effectiveness.  They could make hard turns to put an attacking fighter on their 6 without destroying the inherent accuracy of their bombsight.

Now, I think, bombers have to make the same safety-vs-effectiveness tradeoff that the jabos, goons, and fighter pilots have to make.  I think there should be targets that can be effectively hit from high altitude, but I don't think fields should be among them (HQ and the city should be, though.)  If bomber pilots want an immediate impact at a tactical level, let them fly down here with the rest of us.

[Sabre]

I think the reason pre-1.10 buffs bothered me more than goons, fighters or jabos, was that they were the only ones that could do serious damage, while remaining effectively out of harm's way.

Excellent observation, Runny.  I agree, and believe it further strengthens my argument.  Note that I'm not advocating giving bombers their laser accuracy back.  Even against towns and strat targets, bombers are forced to either bring more buddies with them, or come down to lower altitude.  Since their risk has gone up, it stands to reason their reward for success should too.

Sabre

[runny]

Originally posted by Sabre


Excellent observation, Runny.  I agree, and believe it further strengthens my argument.  Note that I'm not advocating giving bombers their laser accuracy back.  Even against towns and strat targets, bombers are forced to either bring more buddies with them, or come down to lower altitude.  Since their risk has gone up, it stands to reason their reward for success should too.

Sabre

Actually, I kind of liked your idea.  Forgot to mention that.

[Seagoon]

.. or is a lot of this conversation powered by the obvious animus between the bomber and fighter camps?

I liked Tango's initial message, especially because it invited intelligent dialogue aimed at restoring a useful role to level bombers in the MA, which everyone has to admit no longer exists.

Many of the responses from the Fighter Camp (FC) to his message seem to be driven by the following presuppostions:

1) Level bombers were too powerful prior to the 1.10 patch. Their bombs were too accurate and their guns were too powerful vs. our fighters.
2) Only talentless dweebs fly level bombers because they can't master the fighter
3) As far as bombers are concerned; good riddance to bad rubbish, leave 'em as they are. We'll oppose any suggestion that restores real power to them.

So bombers in AH have gone from being relatively important, to nothing but a curiousity ride (I see more FM2s airborne than Level bombers these days).

Admittedly, many of us in the BC really enjoyed bombers, and yup some of will never have the skills necessary to master fighters - the same was the case in the real war where men were directed according to their proclivities into bombers or fighters.

Arguing that any attempt at giving bombers a real role in the game again will add an imbalance ignores the essential fact that as of 1.10 the game is grievously imbalanced. Just check the hard stats - hardly anyone flies bombers anymore and their impact on the game is now non-existent. For a game that prides itself on historical accuracy that's a real problem. For instance, in WW2:

* Several countries (ex. Holland and Poland) surrendered as a result of the level bombing of cities - or the threat of level bombing
* The German war effort was ultimately crippled by level bombing attacks on their oil production and refining centers. Albert Speer called the Strategic Bombing of Germany "the third front".
* Level Bombers tactically deployed had an enormous effect in preparing for offensives and cutting off enemy reinforcements
* England would have LOST the BoB had the germans continued to deploy level bombers against her airfields.

So for a moment can we set aside the fighter jock vs. bomber dweeb hostility and see if we can't provide a role for multi-engine aircraft (other than the P38 and C47) that addresses the EXISTING IMBALANCES

Thanks for your consideration,

Seagoon

[popeye]

IMO, the role of level bombers in the MA should be determined by gameplay considerations.  I don't think "historical accuracy" applies to the roles of fighters, ships, or ground vehicles in the MA -- I can't see why it should apply to bombers.