The Hooligan Bomber Proposal

[Shiva]

sabre.. What are you saying? are you saying that bombers in WWII won the war because they killed all the fighters and destroyed the ability of some country or another to make war? The A bomb maybe. Otherwise... the war was won on the ground and air superiority was won with fighters using bombers as bait.

And the Ardennes offensive was lost by the Germans because of the overwhelming superiority of the Allied forces, not because the Germans ran out of fuel to continue operations? Fuel that the Allied bombing offensive against the POL production and transport prevented from reaching the operational forces?

I still think that the route to go is to give the fluffers targets that they historically had.

Yes, let's. The 17th Bomb Group, flying B-26s, flew its first combat mission against Gabes Airfield in southern Tunisia on 30 December 1942, and flew interdictory and close-support missions, bombing bridges, rail lines, marshalling yards, harbors, shipping, gun emplacements, troop concentrations, and other targets in North Africa before joining the campaign against Sicily and Italy. The 17th received a DUC for a bombing attack on airdromes at Rome on 13 Jan 1944. The 97th Bomb Group, flying B-17s, on June 7, 1944, bombed the German airfield at the city of Galati in Romania. On June 11, they bombed Focsani airfield near Bucharest.

One of the things that makes AH inherently completely unrealistic is that underneath every airfield is a gigantic, indestructible, storage chamber for aircraft, with tens of thousands of each type immediately available. Airfield attacks during WWII to destroy aircraft on the ground were always more effective than trying to destroy them in the air. But in AH, it doesn't matter -- as long as the FHs are up, you can always get the plane of your choice at the field. Bombers carpet-bombing the field may not have been able to put the field out of action for longer than it took bulldozers to push dirt back into the craters, but destroying the aircraft at the field would cripple the ability to mount air operations from that field until more planes were brought in.

The balance of ack and hanger/fuel etc. hardness is pretty well done right now.. if you make it harder to kill everything else then you will have to make the ack harder...

I think that fields -- particularly major fields -- need to have their ack beefed up a lot to more accurately represent what the targets were like. When the 5AF went after Rabaul in the fall of 1943, it was a very heavily defended target.  The harbor was generally more or less filled with IJN warships loaded with AAA.  On land, the AAA consisted of 8 127mm, 15 120mm, 20 80mm, 75 70mm, 110 40mm, 92 25mm, 157 20mm, and one 13mm.  These were distributed among 7 AAA battalions and five field machinecannon companies. Many were mounted on the slopes of the two volcanoes dominating the harbor so they could fire down on low level intruders. "Most Secret" Sitreps of the actions concluded 448 e/a destroyed on the ground and 112 in the air. Highest mission losses to enemy action were 27.3 percent of the B-24, 40 percent for the B-25, 27.6 percent for the P-38 escorts.  Wewak was considered a far tougher target than Rabaul, and Hollandia was tougher than Wewak.

Makes the field ack we've got look pretty lame, doesn't it? Against defenses like that, you want attacking buff forces, so that their large bomb loads can blow down enough of the target's defenses so that jabo runs have a chance of surviving long enough to perform the precision attacks that level bombers can't make. None of this 'one fighter to strafe out the town ack, a heavy fighter to kill the VH, a couple of heavy fighters to flatten the town, and CAP to kill any FPs that came up before the VH was killed while you run the goon in to capture the port' routine.

Tactics in the ETO and PTO were significantly different. In the PTO, the emphasis was on destroying aircraft on the ground, to tax the ability of the Japanese to produce more aircraft and deliver them to the airfields. In the ETO, the intent was to get the Luftwaffe to come up after the bombers so that both the aircraft and its pilot could be destroyed, since it was always much easier for Germany to replace materiel losses. Unfortunately, in AH we've got PTO-style field-attack tactics combined with ETO materiel resupply and an infinite supply of pilots. The whole thing is broken.

[Minotaur]

One thing is very true.  The AH bombers have lost their bite and don't really have much of a usable role.  

For myself, I no longer give it my ALL to pursue, hunt down and destroy bombers.  This is because I realize that they really don't have any effect upon the current strat system.   WHY RISK IT?  

Under v1.10, I had once beleived that I would see massive flights of bombers attacking airfields.  I'm not sure why this does not happen more often.  I only assume that it is because even at that, the chance of even slightly effecting the game really is too low vs the time spent.  Nothing really happens to make it fun after the novelty has passed.

IMO bombers moved from an absurd LGB system to a more realistic system ( Which is very cool! ), but does not allow the bombers a role which can effect gameplay.  This is because gameplay was developed and balanced under the LGB model, not the current one.

[lazs2]

shiva.. a few anomalies do not make for 4 engined bombers being pinpoint targets  killers...   their effectiveness at such targets is pitifull (b25's are twin engine bombers and were also strafers).

Probly the one target that was vulnerable to bombing and was least capitalized on was fuel... Even then... I don't think you could knock out fuel production in completely in countries that had their own resources.

I like the idea of revetments for fighters and not hangers.   I don't think that any field save those that were allmost completetly overan was ever out of ac..  The planes were hidden in the woods and in the jungle and in revetments..  Hardly targets for some lumbering half blind fluff... the planes killed on the ground were allmost all killed by single engine fighters.   That is as it should be.  also.. you should be able to ferry planes (resupply).  I mean, when you land a t a field you should be able to take off from it again.
lazs

[Sabre]

Shiva: Lazs’ mind is made up…kindly don’t confuse him with the facts…that’s my job:D.

et.. the germans never had a four engined bomber and most of the damage done to pinpoint targets (like radar) was with stukas and jabo. Low level 111's at the most. There were no axis planes at D day because allied fighters had killed em all.

Couple of points here, Lazs: We’re not talking about pin-point targets here, at least not exclusively.  Some airfields were small satellite fields, but many were large and sprawling installations suitable to mass level bombing.  The Stuka’s were withdrawn rather early in the Battle of Britain due to their horrendous losses.  The Germans didn’t have any significant Jabo capability until after the BoB was over; the 190 wasn’t in service yet and the 109E’s that fought the BoB had no serious grand attack capability.  The 110’s had some capacity for Jabo work, but were also roughly handled by the RAF.  Hence, the majority of the bombs dropped, both during the initial assaults on RAF Fighter Command and later during the Blitz, were dropped by 111’s, Do-17’s, and Ju-88’s.  The lack of a four-engine bomber has been oft-sighted by the uninformed as supporting the common myth that the Luftwaffe had no doctrine for strategic bombing.  This is simply not true.  By the way, the Germans did have a four-engine bomber.  I can’t remember the make and model, but it used two engines linked to a single propeller in each wing.  It had numerous problems in production and operationally, but did see service in squadron strength later in the war.  They had also developed a four-engine bomber before the war, but it was too slow and underpowered, and was no longer in service in 1939.  Finally, there were no Axis fighters on D-day because most of the fighters on the Channel front had been temporarily transferred to the Eastern front.  That combined with attrition in the air and on the ground, the systematic pounding of strategic targets, and the inability to replace pilot losses all contributed to the no-show status of the Luftwaffe on June 6, 1944.

sabre.. What are you saying? are you saying that bombers in WWII won the war because they killed all the fighters and destroyed the ability of some country or another to make war? The A bomb maybe. Otherwise... the war was won on the ground and air superiority was won with fighters using bombers as bait.

I never said bombers won the war, and certainly didn’t say they did it by destroying all the enemy fighters.   That is putting words in my mouth and is an intellectually dishonest tactic for debate.  What I said is that the purpose of air power is to break things and kill people.  Air superiority is a necessary prerequisite to do that efficiently.  Air superiority is the sum of its parts, those parts being killing enemy fighters in the air, destroying them on the ground, and hampering the enemy’s efforts to produce and supply and operate those fighters.  I challenge you to site one credible source that supports the idea that killing them in the air is the most efficient way to achieve air superiority.  I can’t help but feel your historical view has been warped by your experiences playing Aces High in the MA.  I do assert that the primary purpose of the strategic bombing campaign was to destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war.  While it can be argued that the Allies were never completely successful in doing so to Germany (thought I submit the did accomplish this with Japan), none but the completely ignorant will claim Germany’s ability to continue the war (land, sea, and air) was not terribly hampered by the Allies’ Bomber Offensive.

as for yur proposal... maybe. depends on "hardness" You seem to admit that "winning the war" is unimportant to a lot of players and that no one will play with bombers unless they have to. We agree on those things.. you then seem to admit that the only targets worth hitting for the fluffers are.... fighters. They don't want to affect the war and they don't want to fly the proper plane for the proper target. they want to fly a plane ill suited to the target they choose and they want it to be effective. Fine... lame but fine. Call it gameplay. They want people to respect their effort... that's a little tougher if you give em concessions.

I agree that winning the war is unimportant to an appreciable number of players, though we have only your assertions that they are the majority.  As for no one playing with bombers unless they have to, that is not strictly true.  Some still fly bombers (even me, on occasion), and I still manage to get shot down by enemy fighters while doing so.  What others and I are saying is that the lack of impact of bombers in the MA has caused a lot of people to stop doing so.   They’ve become next to meaningless, making them unrewarding either as rides or as targets.  I’m not sure how you’ve interpreted my statements to mean “the only targets worth hitting for the fluffers are.... fighters.”  The whole point is that they want to affect the war… it’s just that right now they really don’t.

I have no problem with making guns inefective against say hangers but... they will still be the ack strafer of choice except now... with your increassed hardness model we will have fields with no ack and fighters circling around looking for someone dumb enough to take off...

And how is that different than what we have now?  Remember, the reason I suggested making guns less effective against buildings is to make bombers the weapon of choice against towns, cities, and other strat targets.  Bomb and rocket laden fighters will still just as effective at killing hangers and buildings…until they run out of bombs and rockets.  Ack, fuel and ammo will still be susceptible to strafing as before.  Since hangers are still dispersed, they will still be difficult for hi-alt bombers to kill, but not the more densely packed towns and strat targets.

You will have a lot of useless fields unless some fluffer happens along at that field.. Seems that more fields will sit fallow and useless. The balance of ack and hanger/fuel etc. hardness is pretty well done right now.. if you make it harder to kill everything else then you will have to make the ack harder and.... it will really make the game feell unrealistic to strafe ack with no effect.

No field is useless if the hangers are up.  You yourself have often espoused the idea that it should be impossible to kill hangers at all, or in any way diminish the ability to operate fighters from fields up until the moment of capture.  Are you saying you’ve changed your mind about this?  I also don’t follow your reasoning regarding target and ack hardness.  Nor do I see how the idea I’ve proposed would result in any significant increase in “useless” fields.  The “hardness” can stay the same, as measured in pounds of bombs needed to destroy buildings, hangers, and other strat structures.  Ack, fuel, barracks, ammo, and radar would remain the same hardness, and could still be killed just as easily by strafing as they are now.  It would simply become more efficient to use bombers against field towns and strat targets.  Got it?

I still think that the route to go is to give the fluffers targets that they historically had. Ones that are suited to fluffs. Beats tweaking out the pinpoint targets that we have now untill they are unrealistic to both fighter and bomber.
lazs

We seem to be in violent agreement on this point.  However, what we seem to disagree on is what those targets should be, and on what effect hitting those targets should have on gameplay.

[lazs2]

sabre....  your view of history (or the one you state) is a little naive.   you state that Germany's fighters were destroyed in the air and on the ground..  that is correct but they were destroyed by other fighters not by lumbering fluffs.   The effect that fluffs had on winning the war was far greater (if at all) during the final death throes of a country when there was no fighters to oppose em (fighters killed in the air and on the ground by other fighters primarily BTW).   Other than the A bomb... no country or city surrendered because of being bombed by heavy high alt bombers.... It could be said that bombers did more toward hardining the resolve of the bombed country than any war winning effort.   I do not recall any high allt effective bombing by any bombers during the BOB..... 4 engined or not.  

and speaking of dishonest... you state that  i have "espoused"  the idea that fighter hangers should be unkillable..  What i really want is that fighters should be available until the field is captured.   I don't want a field to simply lie fallow.  I don't want so much that the fh's be indestructable as that they not be considered in the availability of fighters.   I would much rather have revetments.   It should not be worth the effort to find and kill every revetment and therefore.... fighter availability.    Ack should also be hard to completly destroy.    Or.... everything should be easy to kill and the fields should change hands rapidly... I don't care which.    I simply want to eliminate as much as possible "useless" fields.

so.... in a "tonage on target " type of gameplay.... There should remain a few acks maybe a few GV's , fighter availability etc. until critical mass is reached at which point.... The field changes hands.   That would be fine with me.   I don't think the fluffers would go for it tho.   I believe that it doesn't do enough to force people to play with them and there is not enough instanty gratification for them.    It's fair and all but what about the fluffers wants is fair or historic  or even good for gameplay?   They don't want any of those things.   They want to have an immediate and personal impact on other players..   Basicaly, they want the same sort of gratification that is possible in a fighter but without  the pesky learniing curve.
lazs

[Sabre]

and speaking of dishonest... you state that i have "espoused" the idea that fighter hangers should be unkillable.. What i really want is that fighters should be available until the field is captured. I don't want a field to simply lie fallow. I don't want so much that the fh's be indestructable as that they not be considered in the availability of fighters.

Come on…you’re hiding behind Symantics, Lazs.  The result is the same, and everyone reading this knows it. You must have missed the rest of that sentence…

Sabre said:

or in any way diminish the ability to operate fighters

All I can say is, you need to go back and re-read my post.  My own view is that making it impossible to affect ops at an enemy field would kill this game more quickly than giving bombers back their lazser bombsites while making them invincible and adding auto-gunners.  But that is the topic for a different post.  I note that you didn’t seem to have any further comments on my clarifications regarding my proposal.  Can I assume than that I’ve cleared up your concerns?

Regarding the tonnage-on-target method of base capture, I’ll reserve judgment until I hear more.  Would the bombs have to actually hit base or town structures to be counted towards that tonnage?  How many bomb loads would it take?  Would it have to all land within a certain time period?  Would the side owning the field have some indication of the base’s impending side-switch?  Would you still be able to capture using paratroops?  On the surface, the idea seems a lot gameier than allowing people to destroy supplies and hangers in order to restrict the enemy’s freedom of action.

By the way, my “view” of air power and air power history is based on twenty years as a professional Air Force officer.  I guess all that air power doctrine and theory they crammed down our throats is all wrong though.  Imagine their surprise when I go back and tell the Air War College faculty that the entire strategic bombing campaign in WWII was completely ineffective, and really all just a big sham to trick those timid Luftwaffe and Japanese fighter pilots into coming up to fight!  Boy, wouldn’t that just frost the mugs of the twenty thousand bomber crewmen (in the 8th AF alone) who died just so those fighter pilots could get some kills and win the war.  What a shame.

I have to wonder how much of what you write here is truely what you believe, and how much is just designed to try to envoke an emotional response.  Your comments at the Con make me suspect it's the latter, but it's hard to tell.  Blanket statements such as you've made here show such an unbelievably narrow view of history as to be...well, unbelievable!  They also continue to show a complete lack of understanding of the diversity of the Aces High player base, what they want, and why they play.  Fortunately, HiTech and company take a more moderate approach.

[lazs2]

semantics?  I don't think so.   You just said "unkillable" to be inflamatory..  something you accuse me of BTW...

and.. far be it for me to pit my pitiful studies of WWII against your vast knowledge but.... perhaps you could enlighten me on just how WWII bombers contributed to the war by effectively hitting the targets that we have in AH?    Are you saying that in WWII that jabos would not be a better choice for such targets?   Are you saying that luring the axis forces up to do combat was not a huge part of winning air superiority in WWII?  

"I never said bombers won the war, and certainly didn’t say they did it by destroying all the enemy fighters. That is putting words in my mouth and is an intellectually dishonest tactic for debate. "

what?  so what did you say?   You seem to admit that bombers have no historic role then in AH as it is now.    You seem to be admitting that WWII bombers had no affect on fighters and air superiority other than forcing the Axis to come up and be slaughtered.   just as I have said.

"let's talk about solutions, such as the idea of making structure targets such as hangers and town/city buildings require bombs and rockets to kill (or at least making guns much more inneffective against them)? Also increase the "blast" effectiveness of those bombs when targeting structures. Consider along with this the idea of making enough of them at the field towns and strat targets that makes level bombers the more efficient platform for attacking them. I understand your opposition to tying field supplies to strat target damage, even if I don't agree, so let's set that one aside for the moment. Lastly, add the idea of no resupply for strat targets. "

Again... You are talking about changing the hardness of some targets and not others..  if ack were weak then fields would just be deacked and useless.    Again tho... why should pinpoint targets be more more efficiently killed with level bombers rather  than jabo?    How can that be right?   How can it be done without appearing extremely gamey?   If bombs and rockets killed thes targets in AH then why not just use the more accurate and simpler jabo?   How would your plane help to increase fluff usage or make them more a part of the game?  How does 20 years in the AF explain this?  

I really am having a hard time figuring out what you want here.   maybe if you explained exactly how you think your idea would work?   I especially would like to know how you would make the level bombers more effective than jabo for pinpoint targets.   Seems like it would turn out just like the PAC in that jabos did all the damage.
lazs

[Sabre]

You just said "unkillable" to be inflamatory...

Oh no, not at all.  Now my second to the last paragraph in my last post, that was meant to be inflamatory;).  You just missed it...again.  In any event, Lazs, I'll not be drawn further into this with you.  If you can't understand what I've been saying all this time, no amount of rewording is going to help you.  If you do understand but only appear to be ignorant or dense, then that's a game I've grown weary of.  You appear to have missed or ignored everything I've tried to say. The fact that only you seem to be having trouble with the concepts put forth tell me I've reached the audience who really matters, and probably about three posts ago.  I've got the feeling they're as weary of this exchange as I am.  But as I said at the Con...no hard feelings.  I'll even buy the first round next year, as long as it's during Happy Hour:D.

[lazs2]

well sabre... I guess if you can't answer any questions then you might as well just declare victory and give up.  

Your second to the last par... Whaa?  all I seen was you bragging about having studied WWII airpower history for 20 years..  that is what you were implying right?

Still.... I expected better answers from a 20 year WWII airpower scholar.
 lazs