Author Topic: Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)  (Read 1617 times)

Offline AKcurly

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #105 on: January 21, 2003, 06:24:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
When you calibrate meticulously and approach the target properly you should consistently hit the target. Currently, you don't. Because of the frustration level who can blame those finding and exploiting a loophole?


I may be incorrect, Iron, but I don't believe hangars are a valid bomber target according to HTC.

It is my understanding that HTC is trying to direct the use of buffs against strategic targets (factories, HQ, CVs & so on.)

Now, folks may say, "well, I'm going to attack hangars with a buff" (as I do myself), but I think HTC is trying very hard to thwart this strategy. :)

curly

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #106 on: January 22, 2003, 08:22:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKcurly
I may be incorrect, Iron, but I don't believe hangars are a valid bomber target according to HTC.


Give us real craters that have a real effect on anything that tries to roll through one -- tanks aren't going to be disturbed much, halftracks more so, the M8 might roll over if you aren't paying attention, but aircraft are going to get munged up if they go through at speed -- and you'll see people start carpet-bombing airfields the way they did during the war to deny them for use. Then you wouldn't have to have the game artificiality of destroying hangars to close an airfield -- you'd have to put enough craters on the ground to keep the enemy pilots from having enough flat ground to make a takeoff run.

Offline leeburt

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Crater Concept
« Reply #107 on: January 22, 2003, 08:48:43 AM »
I like the bomb crater concept.

Offline maxtor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
Re: Crater Concept
« Reply #108 on: January 22, 2003, 01:18:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by leeburt
I like the bomb crater concept.


you forgot to close out  needed to add [/size] [/font] [/b] and [/color]  to  the end of your paragraph to make it work:

I like the bomb crater concept. [/size] [/color] [/font]

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #109 on: January 22, 2003, 01:31:46 PM »
One benefit to having real craters on the ground is that it works to the benefit of the furballers like Lasz -- because virtually all the fighters of the period could take off from fields that were only marginally improved (i.e, grass, graded dirt, etc.), it's going to take a lot of bombs to cover a field widely enough to prevent fighters from coming up at the field; they may have to do some work taxiing around the craters to get to where they have enough clear ground to launch, but the big bombers need long, flat runways and don't steer as well; they're much more vulnerable to field-cratering.

And I don't know that it would even require making the graphical crater collidable; the FE should know where each of the wheels are -- it has to know that to handle landing and takeoff -- so you could fake the effect of going into a crater by using the crater position and diameter to adjust the ground level under each wheel to make the plane/vehicle tilt as if a wheel was dropping into a crater.

One thing I would like to see, and which should only take a small amount of programming, is to enhance the graphics by defining ground objects as either vertical or conformal. Vertical objects, like trees, are placed vertically regardless of the slope; conformal objects, like craters and the stupid white rocks, are placed to lie in the same plane as the ground. This would eliminate the wierd effect of having craters sticking out from the hillside like wood-ear mushrooms -- a crater in a 45° slope should be in the slope, not sticking out from it like a shelf.

Offline tjk964

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
question
« Reply #110 on: January 22, 2003, 02:56:13 PM »
:confused: OK ,i have just thought of a possible problem with this plan.
         What would happen to the group if the pilot responsable for the bomb drop were to be shot down??
          My suggestion would be for one,to have the lead pilot stay in the middle of the group for safety to prevent this but the question still remains,any idea's guys??         (sawman)

Offline StracCop

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
      • http://www.digitaldioramas.com/
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #111 on: January 22, 2003, 03:15:38 PM »
Good question.

The way I see it, the bombadier would cycle through his three planes as he does now.  If his 3-plane group is destroyed (killing him or causing him to hit the silk) then the group would revert to unjoined status.  

In WWII, when a lead bomber upon who the group is dropping is too damaged to continue or is destroyed, another bomber assumes the lead bomber role.

With that historical precedent in mind, players still surviving within the group could, upon the death of the original group leader, join to another pilot who would then take over 'group leader/bombadier' duties for the group.  I think that this would be most consistent with the historical experience.

How's that sound?

David

Offline TheCage

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #112 on: January 22, 2003, 03:42:54 PM »
What I would like to see is a change in the way the bombsite is setup.   Current model takes to much time to setup.   What I would like to see is a system where you dial in the altitude and airspeed to calibrate the bombsite.   You still would not have a laser bombsite, and it would not account for wind drift.    If your speed or altitude changed so would the accuracy of the site.   Less time srtting up the site means less time your going to be a sitting duck.   Just my idea of what would help the bomber pilots out a bit.

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #113 on: January 23, 2003, 12:51:39 PM »
Hip Hip Horay!!!!!!!!   Nice job StracCop.  I left AH for about 4 months, 2 months after the new Buff System was implimented.  I had hoped that during the time off there may be some changes made to the Buff System.  Totaly didnt agree with it. When the Targeting System was changed from a "Lazer Aim System" to a "Random Carpet Bombing System"  they forgot to tell the Ground objects. :)  ie. The ground objects still require "Lazer Accuracy" to destroy them. I have seen a FH surounded by 4 or 5 or even 6  1,000 pound bombs and not destroyed!  Maybe im wrong, but i think that 4 or 5 THOUSAND POUNDS of Ordanance droped within a stones throw away of a Fighter Hanger would Flaten the darn thing!!
With the idea you propose, the Heavy Bomber in AH will be used as much as it used to be.  :)
< S > MugZ....{Mugzeee}
« Last Edit: January 23, 2003, 12:54:17 PM by Mugzeee »

Offline DAVENRINO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1084
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #114 on: January 23, 2003, 02:08:54 PM »
StracCop,
Excellent idea!  I think you should email this entire thread to HiTech.  Maybe then you would get a reply.
DJ229
DAVE aka DJ229-AIR MAFIA
CH USB HOTAS/ONKYO 705 7.2 SURROUND SOUND/ 60" SONY A3000 SXRD  TV

Offline StracCop

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
      • http://www.digitaldioramas.com/
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #115 on: January 23, 2003, 02:29:05 PM »
Thanks DAVENRINO,

I don't think I need to e-mail it to him though.
If he isn't aware of it by now he's in a coma.  

I really hope that our thorough examination of the issue and the clear interest many members have in seeing it implemented will result in its adoption in some future release.  

Still, I'll be bumping this post around to see what additional thoughts and concerns we can raise.  I think the more clearly we articulate what we hope for in the game, the better Dale will be able to envision things clearly from our perspective.   Some companies pay thousands of dollars doing the kind of market research we're doing right here.  I hope he appreciates the effort.  ;)

Thanks again for the kudos!

David
« Last Edit: January 23, 2003, 02:32:11 PM by StracCop »

Offline 2bull

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #116 on: January 23, 2003, 03:57:51 PM »
i agree with the concept., i too have been away from the game due to the bombing changes, and wish there was a way to make it enjoyable again.
while i understand, the "concept" is to make it ""realistic"". at the same time, it seems that the powers that be have forgotten that it is a sim game, and is supposed to be enjoyed and made somewhat easier than the real thing to do.
I pay my money each month to have fun, not bang my head against the comuter screen in frustration.but then again, nobody is forceing me to keep paying ...
just a thought.. mine are cheap...

Offline tgnr2001

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #117 on: January 23, 2003, 05:41:31 PM »
Two thumbs up  :cool:

I didn't leave the game  (been flying those ground buffs these days instead), but would love to have a reason to fly real buffs more again.  Still fly them some and have some luck with town, but that's about it.  also, early in this thread, noticed someone mention the side-to-side spread... I definitely agree a wider spread would be more logical and preferable.  As it is, 3 17's dropping down the cent of a town, even on the diaganol, is gonna leave some buildings up...  you'd think 18k of ordinance would pretty much wipe out a town, and could if the spread were wider.

Nice job StracCop and all the folks who have added to this post.

tgnr

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #118 on: January 23, 2003, 08:30:34 PM »
I think you're right Curly....the ONLY targets I look for when bombing are FH's..then VH..if it is remotely along the path...and it seems that no matter WHAT the f ya do..there is enough 'play' thrown into egg drops that hangar hits are iffy thing..regardless of alt
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline Imp

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #119 on: January 25, 2003, 07:44:57 AM »
The problem is that level bombers werent designed to hit single hangars. They were made to carpet bomb wich requires large targets, like current strat targets.

German bombers in the BoB targeted airfields to prevent fighters from taking off by destroying the runways, wich we cant do in AH.

Making airstrips destroyable would be much more realistic.
The current system might be a little too accurate for that though.
Increased dispersion might be requiered.