The Hooligan Bomber Proposal

[lazs2]

Nooooo.... you are all not listening...  I have no problem with bombers impact on winning the war.   What the bomber guys want tho, is to impact dozens of fighters at one time and in one sortie.   They want to do it by denying the ability for fighters to even take off.

I did not create the seperate nature of bombers and fighters.  It is historic and the nature of the beasts.   they don't have the same abilities nor they do they require the same skills.   They can't really be forced to "mix"..  

It is perfectly acceptable if there is some voluntary mix..  Say... someone is concerened with "winning the war" (and the amount of "missuns" lately point to the fact that many probly are)... Those concerned with the war effort will try to prevent the bombers from killing the area bombing target.... They will intercept and thus mix..

forced mixing causes animosity of the worst sort.   Gameplay imbalance at the worst and lack of respect at best.   I offer all of these threads as proof.

If you wish to impact gameplay for dozens of players at a pop with very little effort then you have no right to complain about the animosity.... you can try to maintain your unfair advantage or attention getter but don't get upset when you are given no respect and/or people are lobbying to take some of the power from you.

I don't really say good riddance to bombers so much as I say good riddance to bombers who's sole purpose is to affect fighters.
lazs

[Seagoon]

Lazs,

I'm wondering if you can flesh your reply out a little. You seem to be saying that 1 Lanc pilot has no inherent right to destroy most of the fighter hangers at a base, but that 3 Jabo pilots do.

I'm not sure that I understand this "no mixing" concept, if we grant it, then shouldn't 1 fighter pilot vulching a base have no right to deny a bomber the right to take off?

What in your mind are the gameplay "rights" of bombers and fighters? Could you spell them out a little.  Also, to what extent do you feel strategic elements be allowed to affect the game? At this point it doesn't seem like you allow for much at all.

I just want to understand what you're getting at.

- Seagoon

[Sabre]

Excellent questions, Seagoon.  Lazs:

Nooooo.... you are all not listening... I have no problem with bombers impact on winning the war. What the bomber guys want tho, is to impact dozens of fighters at one time and in one sortie. They want to do it by denying the ability for fighters to even take off.

But...don't we currently "win" the war by taking bases?  And isn't the key to taking bases achieving air superiority over those bases?  And don't we do that by both shooting enemy planes down and preventing their launch by killing hangers?  So it's okay for a Jabo pilot to do this, but not a bomber?

I did not create the seperate nature of bombers and fighters. It is historic and the nature of the beasts. they don't have the same abilities nor they do they require the same skills. They can't really be forced to "mix"..

At the risk of sounding critical of your historical prowess...huh? RAF Fighter Command was specifically created to "mix" with the bombers...the Luftwaffe kind.  Primary target of the 8th AF was the Luftwaffe.  The B-17 and the B-24 were built with an eye towards going toe to toe with the Luftwaffe fighters and winning.  I won't argue your point regarding abilities or skill, but your comment about them not mixing is hogsswallow (pardon my French).

It is perfectly acceptable if there is some voluntary mix.. Say... someone is concerened with "winning the war" (and the amount of "missuns" lately point to the fact that many probly are)... Those concerned with the war effort will try to prevent the bombers from killing the area bombing target.... They will intercept and thus mix..

Voluntary mix?  You mean like, "Bombers in this area by invitation only!"???  Who wants to limit who's fun?  I do believe if you'ld look again at all those posts you'll note that most bomber advocates are only asking for a way to impact that war effort...primarily by increasing the impact of strategic bombing.  They would also like a direct role in base capture, but is that so wrong?  Few are asking for the abilty of a single bomber pilot to laser (or "lazser"?) kill every field target from 30K.  What they do want is to have targets worth the time and effort to bomb.  Right now they don't really exist on a strategic or tactical level.  They used to, but now they don't.

forced mixing causes animosity of the worst sort. Gameplay imbalance at the worst and lack of respect at best. I offer all of these threads as proof.

I've seen very few if any instances of bomber pilots calling fighter pilots talentless fluffers or other disparaging terms.  Personally, I love to look around from my cockpit (a tiny fighter one or a big roomy bomber one) and see all different types of airplanes out there.  As for imbalance, it has been pointed out above that right now the imbalance all appears to be in favor of the furballing fighters.  Guess it depends on your definition of "imbalance."

If you wish to impact gameplay for dozens of players at a pop with very little effort then you have no right to complain about the animosity.... you can try to maintain your unfair advantage or attention getter but don't get upset when you are given no respect and/or people are lobbying to take some of the power from you.

The Goon, Lazs, think of the Goon.  It does just that, but I don't see very many asking for it's bannishment to it's own corner of the MA, where it can fly slow in circles and drop troops on a big bullseye painted on the ground to it's heart's content without punishing all those fighter pilots by denying them a base of operations just when the fight was getting good.  Unfair advantage?  Exactly what would that unfair advantage be in the MA of version 1.10?

I don't really say good riddance to bombers so much as I say good riddance to bombers who's sole purpose is to affect fighters.
lazs

Fighters and bombers have a symbiotic relationship...they are the Ying and Yang.  Like Good and Evil, one has no true reason to exist without the other.  "Chant with me now...bombaswannakillsdafight as, fightaswannakillsdabombas."

[Karnak]

Lazs,

You are the only one stating that bomber pilots want to, with a single player, be able to massively affect dozens of other players.

Sabre's idea in this thread, and my idea posted in two other threads, both focused on giving bombers strategic targets that had a real impact on the war without giving bombers the ability to completely stop fighter ops from any field without using many players and simply carpet bombing the airfield into oblivion, say 6-9 players each with 3 Lancs.

Your response to our suggestions has been to say that we simply want bombers to be able to easily pork fighter ops.  This is simply not so.

Against my idea you even went out and stated that it would cause milk running, though I haven't the faintest idea how it could do that any more than the current system.

There is a possible problem coming with the introduction of the Me163 as well.  The only strategic target worth hitting is the HQ.  The ability of C-47s to fix it greatly reduced the value of hitting the HQ.  The new bombsight makes it much harder to get 20,000lbs on that small of a target.  The changes to bomber guns and durability make it much harder to reach the HQ.  It has be claimed by some players, though not verified by HTC, that the Me163 will be a free aircraft launching from the HQ, or from the bases around the HQ.  If this is true it will give defending players a unit that can nullify in one or two minutes all of the altitude that the bomber pilots spent half an hour getting.  If this is true it might well make the HQ, particularly with the other bomber changes since 1.10, an essentially untouchable target.

I strongly feel that C-47s, M-3s and LTV2s should not be able to resuply strategic targets.  Strategic targets build aircraft, vehicles and supply bases, not the other way around.  A sinlge C-47 pilot can undo the work of 10 bomber pilots before their bombers have even landed.

For the record, I may sound very pro-bomber, but I fly fighters 95% of the time.  I enjoy hunting bombers.  I enjoy hunting fighters.  I enjoy hunting GVs.  They are all challenging, but in different ways.  I advocate these changes to the gameplay because I think it would make for a richer, more enjoyable game environment, not because I want to pork FHs with bombers or ruin anyone's fun.

[lazs2]

"Lazs,

I'm wondering if you can flesh your reply out a little. You seem to be saying that 1 Lanc pilot has no inherent right to destroy most of the fighter hangers at a base, but that 3 Jabo pilots do. "

YES.. that is what I am saying.   I am saying that if fighter operations can be shut down by killing a couple of carports then... yes.. A level bomber, with one talentless buss driver,  should be incapable of hitting such a small target but 3 individuals flying jabo at low alt should be able to take out said targets.  I am saying that is realistic AND fair... If you don't like it then change the targets and/or their worth.

sabre... yeah... the B17's really were "flying fortresses" eh?   they didn't need all that silly fighter escort because of their design?  IMO.. and many others ..  the big role of bombers in WWII against fighters was to draw the LW up so that Fighters could fight fighters.   It forced the LW to fight our fighters... don't see how we can duplicate that (in the MA at least).

And yes... we currently "win the war" by taking bases.  So long as that is the case I see no way to integrate level bombing in a realistic  way.   We need to have area targets for area bombers or get rid of the bombers.  Or.. the bombers shuld be happy with historical accuracy just as they were in the pacific.

voluntary mix means that... if fighters had a reason to attack bombers that made sense then.... there would be voluntary mix.  I know you can grasp that concept.. If you wish to keep your country from "losing the war" you will hit the bombers on their way to the area targets.

and... much as I sympathize with your desire to "look around and see all types of ac".... I'm not playing so that you can live in diversity.    If that's all you want then put a bunch of Ai up.

And karnak.... to destroy a countries capability to fly from a field that they still own or... to not be able to leave a 25% tether doesn't seem like a good plan for MA play where many are only on for an hour or so IMO.   it creates a situation where you are essentially unable to find a fight.   That may seem simplistic to you but many are in it for the simple fight.   If we can allow fights to continue but strat guys to effect the outcome of the war... then isn't everyone getting what they want..

basically the fluffers are saying that "the **** have won the war" is not enough reward or... that it is not what they are flying for..  What they want is what the fighter guys want... they want to piss off somebody.   Difference being.... I can only piss off one at a time and I gotta earn it in a fighter.


sabre said... "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"

Yep.... they want to force people to play with them and they want an immediate affect on the "fighting"   The fighting?   This seems to admit that they are not a part of the fighting.   I think it is obvious that by "an immediate and decernable impact on the fighting" it is meant that they impact fighters.   this is lousy history and lousy gameplay.



At the risk of correcting sabre again....It still boils down to something more like parasite than sybiotic.   The fluffs need the fighters..  their lives are defined by the fighters and they want only to participate in the fighter war.   If they can't accept anything less than that unless it is voluntary then they will be unhappy or... they will make everyone else unhappy.
lazs

[Shiva]

At the risk of correcting sabre again....It still boils down to something more like parasite than sybiotic. The fluffs need the fighters.. their lives are defined by the fighters and they want only to participate in the fighter war. If they can't accept anything less than that unless it is voluntary then they will be unhappy or... they will make everyone else unhappy.

At the risk of pointing out your hypocrisy again, lasz, what it boils down to is that, prior to 1.10, the bomber pilots had a noticeable effect on the play of the game; one or two bomber pilots could shut down a field so that a small group of fighters could clear the AAA for a goon to come in to capture the field. This meant that you had to tear yourself away from your furball when you saw a bomber coming in, because it was a threat to your being able to keep furballing.

The 1.10 release basically castrated bombers; even with the addition of bomber formations, it's functionally impossible for level bombers to be a serious threat to anything but a minor field, and the strat system is so broken that you can ignore attacks against them, too. So you're freed from having to worry about bombers approaching, because you know that they can't do anything to hurt you. And when the people who used to bomb regularly complain about their game play suddenly becoming marginalized, you prate on about how the 'fluffers' never had any realeffect on fighter operations (carefully ignoring how badly RAF Fighter Command was getting wasted by the Luftwaffe until Hitler went stupid and ordered the Blitz).

Imagine for a moment that the situation was reversed -- that with the 1.10 update, bombing remained the laser-guided sniping it was in 1.09, bomb capacities had been expanded to their historical limits (i.e., the B-17 with a maximum bomb load of 17,600 pounds for short-range missions), destruction of strat targets porked airfields supplied by those targets so you had to take off with bad gas and limited ammo loads, and the way that bomber gunnery worked had been altered so that bomber gunners could kill fighters the way that gunners claimed kills in the skies over Europe.

Suddenly, not only do bombers constitute a real and continuing threat to your ability to furball, but when you do try to run the bombers down and kill them before they flatten your fields, they blow you out of the sky without you being able to damage them significantly. And when you complain that the update has made the game pointless for you, some loudmouth bomber pilot yammers on about how Aces High is all about taking airfields and causing resets, and fighter-vs-fighter combat is only an adjunct to the bombing campaign, and that all the Whiskey Delta gomers who squeak about the changes should face reality and live with it.

Doesn't sound so funny on the other foot, does it? The game changed massively with the 1.10 update -- an update which changed the balance of play in a direction that lets you ignore the things you didn't want to have to pay attention to  -- and you're pissing and moaning because the people who got screwed over by the update want to move things closer back to the way they were previously. I'm dead certain that if you'd been shafted by the update, you'd be arguing just as seriously to get things shifted back as the bomber pilots are now. Remember this, lasz, because the bomber pilots will, and we'll laugh at you when the game gets tilted the other way by an update and you complain.

...to destroy a countries capability to fly from a field that they still own or... to not be able to leave a 25% tether doesn't seem like a good plan for MA play where many are only on for an hour or so IMO. it creates a situation where you are essentially unable to find a fight.

So what you are saying is that players are unable to figure out what the bardar and radar dots are there for? That sounds like a pretty serious insult to the other players.

[runny]

Originally posted by Shiva

(carefully ignoring how badly RAF Fighter Command was getting wasted by the Luftwaffe until Hitler went stupid and ordered the Blitz).
 

Since this is the second time I've seen this, it should be noted that this job was done either by Stukas before they were withdrawn, or by large (tens of planes, usually around 50) raids of level bombers, not the sort of small raids that took place pre 1.10.

It should also be noted that when these bombers were unescorted, Fighter Command mauled them terribly, something that also wasn't the case pre 1.10.

But as I've said before, and as Popeye has also said, gameplay and fun are what's important, not historical accuracy.  If you want to say that it takes fifty level bombers to maul a field, though, I won't disagree.

So you're freed from having to worry about bombers approaching, because you know that they can't do anything to hurt you.

I must confess, this is what I've wanted all along.  I'm sorry if this is less fun for some bomber pilots -- it seems we are at an impasse.  I guess this is that fighter/bomber animus Seagoon talks of.

I want the bomber guys to have fun too, but I never want to go back to the days where a lone bomber pilot could wreck a field from very high altitude.  I've seen some proposals to make things more fun for the bomber pilots,  and some of them look pretty good, but if any should involve making a lone bomber pilot the mortal threat it was earlier (yes, I'm talking about crater damage,) I will have to voice my opposition.

Again, I actually *like* being able to ignore the bombers for once.  That may seem unreasonable to some of you, but there it is.

[Seagoon]

Hi Runny,

Well, I'll say one thing at least, your post is pretty darn frank and honest about your feelings about why you don't like the level buffs and why you don't want them back.

Just a couple of quick reactions...

We all like innovations that favor our style of play and once they are in place we'll fight to keep 'em. It's like trying to abolish a hand-out once it's been put in place by politicians.

Bombers are naturally mostly hated by the fighter crowd, so their neutering has been welcomed. There are two core problems with that though. The first is that lest we forget, fighters are actually defensive weapons, bombers are offensive. Now that bombers are gone, we have a massive shift strategically in favor of defense. Bombers, Recon, and Close Support aircraft are war winners - the job of fighters is actually to try to stop them from doing their job and prevent other fighters from defending them. That equation is gone at present.

The second is that not only is the bomber crowd tremendously frustrated (we actually liked flying these Big Ugly Fellas) but the vehicle of choice for a LOT of the inexperienced pilots is now gone. I learned to fly AW on Buffs and for a long time here in AH it was the only way I could play without getting constantly wasted by all the fighter experten while I learned the new flight dynamics. At present I feel for a lot of the new guys who are going up only to be shot down immediately by the experienced players. No one likes to experience firsthand what Japanese pilots must have felt like in 1945.

I have no stats to back it up, but my guess is that this will negatively impact subscribership, which will ultimately impact all of you if HT can't afford to do what we want, or like so many other OL games goes out of business.

I guess because of the territorialism, this, like all problems that favor one side or the other will have to be settled by HT not us. I'm glad that HT listens to player input, and I'm confident that they probably know there is a problem that needs to be addressed and will address it. I look at 1.10-13 as the betas for the new bombing system, and as we all know in programing "quality is job 1.1" The system needs to be tweaked, and I'm hoping it will be.

FWIW I think even the fighter jocks would enjoy a more ground target rich environment. Where are those smokestacks belching sulfurous fumes into the sky? Those bridges itching to be dumped into a river? Those packed Fuel Dumps, Vehicle parks and assembly areas that need to be worked over with .50 cal. Oh and by the way, large Airfields need a mix of light and heavy mannable ack. A few quad 20mms and some twin MG42s need to be added to the ubiquitous and mostly useless 37mms. That would also add to the clustering for bombing we are looking for.

BTW - I'm really looking forward to the "mishun" arena with player progression. I'm planning on being a Half-Elven Fighter-Cleric so I can heal other planes in flight myself.



- Seagoon

[dtango]

This all goes back to what I think the principles we have to satisfy are.

[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

You can't just have 1 without the other 2 in relation to the gameplay.  

In my opinion going back to pre 1.10 laser guided bombing isn't the right answer.  Nor is the current 1.10 bombing gameplay implementation with a lack of bombing impact the right answer.  Neither solution satisfies all 3 principles.

I believe coming to a consensus on this would be huge step in coming up with a REASONABLE solution.  And I do believe a reasonable solution exists.


Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Shiva]

I want the bomber guys to have fun too, but I never want to go back to the days where a lone bomber pilot could wreck a field from very high altitude. I've seen some proposals to make things more fun for the bomber pilots, and some of them look pretty good, but if any should involve making a lone bomber pilot the mortal threat it was earlier (yes, I'm talking about crater damage,) I will have to voice my opposition.

Remember, Runny, that even if someone takes up a Lancaster formation and lays 1,000-lb bomb craters the length of the runway, fighters can still take off from the hangars along the taxiways -- or just along the grass.  Laying craters across the field would make it harder to get heavy fighters off the field, but since what I've seen are the furballers complaining about buffs being able to hurt the fields, that won't be an issue, since anyone who loads bombs for a furball deserves to die.

Making the fields and strat targets more complex would address many problems -- it gives the buff drivers more targets to drop on, makes buffs more important for capturing fields, and keeps a single buff driver from completely fragging a field.

If a minor field had, say, four or five FHs and eight or nine revetments, all of which had to be bombed to close the field to fighter launches, then there's no way that a single bomber formation is going to be able to shut down the field. And with the increased number of targets that have to be destroyed to close the field, it tilts the balance back from jabos to buffs, because where it would take more than a dozen jabos to close the field, three or four buff formations could do it.

If you wanted to tilt the balance even further, making it harder to close fields and making buffs more important,  then it should be fairly easy to raise the stakes -- require that, to close a field for bombers or fighters, all of the appropriate type of hangars/revetments have to be destroyed within a short time period, such as five minutes.  This would represent how, if you give the defenders time, they can disperse the aircraft away from the hangars and continue operations. With more targets on a field, this would make it harder for a field to be closed -- jabo strikes would have to be much better coordinated -- while the ability of a buff group to take out multiple targets on a single pass would allow a small group of buff drivers to make a single pass over the field bomb the field down. It still requires coordination to close the field, but it both allows fighter operations to continue despite molestation by a single buff driver, but it draws the buff drivers back into the field capture process, because they've got the bomb load to let you take fields with fewer people.

[lazs2]

shiva said.... "At the risk of pointing out your hypocrisy again, lasz, what it boils down to is that, prior to 1.10, the bomber pilots had a noticeable effect on the play of the game; one or two bomber pilots could shut down a field so that a small group of fighters could clear the AAA for a goon to come in to capture the field. This meant that you had to tear yourself away from your furball when you saw a bomber coming in, because it was a threat to your being able to keep furballing"

Again?  I am still trying to find where I was a hypocrite in the first place.    enlighten me.    Other than that.....We see the pre 1.10 gameplay differently.    I see it as, prior to 1.10 a fluff with a no talent, atention starved bus driver could lazer guide some bombs from very high alt onto a field and destroy a few carports thereby ruining a great fight and a lot of skilled players fun.   The fields were rarely captured after the FH attack and they simply lay fallow and useless.    A real attention starved fluffer might be able to make 2 or three fields useless for awhile.

 The "antidote" for such ridiculous unbalance was for some fighter jock to sacrafice his fun for the good of all the others and "cap" the furball so that an attention starved fluffer couldn't have an "effect" on the game.   This was of course a huge bore and a lot to ask of someone.   His evening of gameplay was ruiined and his only reward was to shoot down some half Ai fluff...  If he was lucky he could kill the chute.   Meanwhile.... everyone else was having fun while he was watching.

truth is... fluffers are lucky that they are no fun to shoot down and a waste of time because if they were really worth killing and even halfway fun then fighter guys would hunt em and kill every one of em with no problem and they would still have "no affect" on the gameplay.

long as fluffers insist on having an effect on fighters then they are gonna be unhappy.    We will put up with a little inconvienience from them but as soon as they can't be ignored they will be resented and people will try to get rid of em.    long as fluffers insist on wanting to kill targets better suited to jabo they will be unhappy.
lazs

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Lazs:
And karnak.... to destroy a countries capability to fly from a field that they still own or... to not be able to leave a 25% tether doesn't seem like a good plan for MA play where many are only on for an hour or so IMO. it creates a situation where you are essentially unable to find a fight. That may seem simplistic to you but many are in it for the simple fight. If we can allow fights to continue but strat guys to effect the outcome of the war... then isn't everyone getting what they want..

I agree, that is why I have never advocated those things.  The fact that you keep putting words in my mouth about that is quite vexing.

I have repeatedly stated that the ability to globaly pork fuel would be much too powerful.  I have repeatedly stated that airfields should be very bomber resistant, as they are now.

I have suggested alternatives that do not go against either of those principles, but you just can't seem to see it.

As to affecting the outcome of the war being what strat guys want.  No, that is not correct.  Strat guys want to affect the course of the war.  Just affecting the end does nothing but give a magic "we win" button.  Level bombers being able to affect the course of the war is not irreconcilable with furballs.

Changes needed to do so:

• Strategic targets must not be resupplyable by C-47s, M-3s or LTV2s. Strategic assets build vehicles and supply bases, not the other way around.
• Strategic targets that are densely packed and large need to be added.  These targets would be ideal for carpet bombing, but would require many bombers to destroy.
• The new strategic targets should be fortified with multitudes of reinforced gun positions to make Jabo aircraft nearly useless against them.
• The new strategic targets would govern the durability of all hangers.  When the new strategic targets are at 100% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at full durability.  When the new strategic targets are at 0% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at something like 50% of full durability.
• FH, BH and VH full durability levels need to be increased, say to 4,000lbs needed to destroy a hanger when at full durability.
• Change the HQ down effect so that it doesn't completely black out radar.  Rather the HQ being down should cause players to only recieve radar updates from the nearest friendly field.  This would still deny a side the ability to see the big picture, but would allow them to still find fights and not conduct excessive dot chasing.  It would also make sense having the HQ as a national coorinator.

My predictions about the effects these changes would have:

• Furballs would be harder to stop due to the greater base durability of the hangers.  This is good for the furballers.
• Bomber strikes on the new strategic targets would be run by the strat players so that the strat players in Jabo aircraft and Goons could take bases.  This is good for the bomber guys as it gives them a valuable and appriciated role.
• Always having some radar allows fights to be found in allsituations.  This might mitigate the tendency of people to log off enmasse when the HQ is taken out and kept out.  This is good for the furballers.
• The HQ being taken out denies the enemy the ability to effectively coordinate against attacks.  While plenty of fighting would still occur, the enemy would not be able to effectively block major attacks.  This is good for the strat guys.
• Ammunition, ordanace and fuel would not be able to be porked globally.  This is good for the furballers.

I really think this would allow strat guys and furballers to co-exist happily.  It would be ideal for people like me who sometimes just want to fuball and sometimes want to play the strat game.

[runny]

Originally posted by Karnak


Changes needed to do so:

• Strategic targets must not be resupplyable by C-47s, M-3s or LTV2s. Strategic assets build vehicles and supply bases, not the other way around.
• Strategic targets that are densely packed and large need to be added.  These targets would be ideal for carpet bombing, but would require many bombers to destroy.
• The new strategic targets should be fortified with multitudes of reinforced gun positions to make Jabo aircraft nearly useless against them.
• The new strategic targets would govern the durability of all hangers.  When the new strategic targets are at 100% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at full durability.  When the new strategic targets are at 0% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at something like 50% of full durability.
• FH, BH and VH full durability levels need to be increased, say to 4,000lbs needed to destroy a hanger when at full durability.
• Change the HQ down effect so that it doesn't completely black out radar.  Rather the HQ being down should cause players to only recieve radar updates from the nearest friendly field.  This would still deny a side the ability to see the big picture, but would allow them to still find fights and not conduct excessive dot chasing.  It would also make sense having the HQ as a national coorinator.

[/B]

I like this.  I really like this.

[Zizu]

One fact that has been completely overlooked in this thread is that players who bombed from 25k+ gave up a significant amount of their play time for that altitude.  As I see it, patience should be rewarded.

Having said this, my bombing skill in a Lancaster had gotten to the point where I could easily take out all the fighter hangers at even a medium field.  I can see why a correction to this model was deemed necessary, but on the other hand, version 1.1 has gone entirely too far.  Several of my friends have sworn off bombing altogether because of these changes.  If you want to get an idea of the impact on gameplay, just check out the stats after this last reset to see just how few bomber sorties are being flown.

I would like to see some minor adjustments that would swing the balance back to the point that level bombing would at least be considered worthwhile again by some of the players who have abandoned it.  Remember that historical accuracy shouldn't be the trump card -- it's a GAME, and that game needs to be fun to play in all of it's aspects.  If the game were completely historically accurate, I'm sure nobody would play it.   No one would spend hours on a single mission with no real action except for a few minutes of it.


Zizu

[Sabre]

At the risk of correcting sabre again....

I'm still waiting to hear the first "correction" (what you've done is disagree...not the same thing).  Your myopic view of history is nothing short of amazing, my friend!  I see too much wrong with everything you've said, Lazs, to expend the time necessary to "correct" it all, so I'll simply reiterate my views again.  Bombers had a place in real life.  They were a threat to an enemy, requiring them to be countered.  That is not the case in AH at this time, and I believe this needs to be addressed by HTC, in order to restore the rich diversity of gameplay that used to be the norm.  Oh, and I do play so I can live in that diversity, and pay my $15 a month for the privilage.  Guess that makes us both self-centered son's of biscuits, don't it?

By the way, there's a point Lazs and his ilk have conveniently ignored in their self-rightous arguments against bombers "interference" with fighter ops.  It takes little more talent for a Jabo to drop a bomber hanger or ammo bunker than it does for a bomber to take out a fighter hanger or fuel tanks.  Indeed, under the new bombing method the Jabo's job is probably easier, if he dosen't mind dying in the process.  So if one fighter pilot can pork the fun of bomber pilots by killing their hanger or ammo dump at a field, then how can you argue that it is unacceptable for bomber pilots to do the same to the fighter pilots?  Your argument that it's okay for fighters to kill fields facilities because it's "harder" is based on a faulty premise.

The really humorous part of all this is, that's not what I and other bomber advocates are asking for (most of us, anyway).  Neither do we want a role that "wins the war" in such a way as there's no challange to it.  
But winning the war requires the takine of bases.  Thus, those who like to fly bombers (exclusively or occasionally) want to have an impact on that process, one that provides at least as much timely satisfaction as a fighter pilot (or goon pilot, for that matter) gets when fighting for that same cause.  As they pay the same monthly fee as anyone else, they're entitled to it.