The Karnak Bomber Proposal v1.1

[dtango]

So that it doesn't get lost in the ongoing discussions...

• 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 have to be captured as well to meet the victory/defeat war conditions [ver 1.1 addition].
• 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.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[dtango]

Tango's "appendix" on principles guiding level bombing...

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 (e.g. high difficulty for a medium sized formation of bombers to stop fighter ops)

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.

I think Karnak's proposal meets the above 3 principles.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Karnak]

Thanks dtango.

I think what is generally indicated by the profusion of bomber threads since 1.10 was released is that something needs to be done to adjust the gameplay so as to include bombers in a reasonable manner.  There have been several player suggested changes posted over the last month.  I am certain that there are more possibilities.

What would be very nice right now is to hear from HTC that they are aware that there is a problem in this area and will eventually do something to fix it.  So far there has not been any comment from HTC that even indicates that this is an area of concern.

Pyro, HiTech, please give us some insight into your opinion of the way bombers currently fit in the gameplay of AH.

Thanks.

[WhiteHawk]

I can honestly say, since the patch and the new bomber system,
I have not seen an ar234.  Not even 1.
  Not sure what to make of this, but I dont think its good for the
game.