Author Topic: Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)  (Read 1652 times)

Offline MOIL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
      • http://www.ltar.org
Bombers
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2002, 02:58:48 PM »
I'll be the first to tell anyone I'm NOT the greatest bomber pilot in AH, but this "formation of bombers" is a step in the right direction for Aces and noobies alike!  :cool:

Offline StracCop

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
      • http://www.digitaldioramas.com/
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2002, 03:30:29 PM »
Quote
suggestion is to make the number of planes to 18 to form a bomber box.

DarkHawk,

Good thought.

I had considered that so we could have maximum historical accuracy.  The 12-bomber formation I came up with is actually adapted from the B-17 Group Combat Box Formation used during World War II.  In the end though I decided not to suggest it for 2 principle reasons and a technical concern:

First, while it would be more historically accurate, it would run the risk of becoming an overpowering and irresistable force in the game.  Believe me, fighters will have their hands full.  They will need to form joint missions, maintain caps (or have access to Me-163's) and coordinate attacks if they have a chance of downing an entire group - a group that may have its own 'little friends' with them.  I think the challenge will be great enough with 12 planes where, incidentally, there can be two gunners in each set of 3 for a maximum of 8 manned guns firing at them (if the Group Leader is also in a gun during the attack).  I think that having to attack 18 will be all but impossible for fighters....and hey, I want a crack at attacking a Bomber Group ... an living to tell the tale..myself. ;)

Still, with that said, nothing would stop more than one Bomber Group from forming (after some planning and coordination, I would suppose) and creating a coordinated mass attack.  Remember, during World War II, bomber groups would launch from multiple bases in England and meet at a rally point before their final run into the target.  Creating an opportunity for similar missions in AH would further enhance the historical complexity and coordination required to form such missions.

The second reason is that I think Group Leaders will have enough trouble trying to fly their own formation and three additional ones that are tethered to his formation.  Anything but the smallest course-correcting manuevers will require the Group Leader to think far ahead - they will have to plan their course and any mid-course turns needed to arrive at the target - just like they had to do during the war.  Trying to do that with 5 tethered formations and his own might prove too daunting a task.

A final reason is that the technical demands of such a grouping might prove more than the game can handle.  I have no idea what effect a 4-formation Bomber Group would have on frame rates when escorts and opposing fighters are all thrown together.  Heck, I don't even know if its possible to form the Bomber Group in the first place...but I hope its possible.

I started this thread to promote a community discussion of the idea to discuss its merits and to uncover any flaws in the concept.  Along the way, your thoughtful discussion has allowed me to fine-tune my original idea and to better disclose some of its nuances for your consideration.  

Through this exercise, I hope that we have created a knowledgebase of sorts to help HiTech and HTC decide if its warranted, desired and technically possible.  

Thanks for contributing your ideas and feedback to the thread...if this idea happens, I would love for it to be a by-product of such a discussion.  Wouldn't that be nice..? :D

- Dave
« Last Edit: August 22, 2002, 03:38:15 PM by StracCop »

Offline Awulf

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
      • http://www.imagisite.com/mdiplo
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2002, 03:47:02 PM »
I must say this has been one of the best thought out proposals I have seen in this BBS.
Your thoughts are clear and concise and encourage open non-critical comments and suggestions from others.
I hope you plan on staying around for a long while and just maybe we can all learn something from you when comes to making our own proposals and suggestions for AH :D

Offline T0J0

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2002, 04:09:15 PM »
Great post Strac!!!!

T0J0

Offline DarkHawk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 341
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2002, 04:09:34 PM »
Thanks for the comment.
One way to test will be the scenario BOB with all of those JU-88 in formation each group could consist of 6 pilots and 18 planes.
This would then give an idea on the Frame Rate and other complications that may arise.
Also if more than a single group you could possible have any where from 18 to 64 ju-88 or more in the same area.
We need to film these battles to see what effect we have on the system, both the PC and the servers

DarkHawk
49DHawk
XO for BOWL (DHawk)

Offline StracCop

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
      • http://www.digitaldioramas.com/
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2002, 09:28:18 PM »
I'm just a little curious.
Is anyone who has read this thread opposed to the idea?

If so please share your thoughts on the subject.

Thanks,

- Dave
"StracCop"
113th 'Lucky Strikes' Attack Squadron

Offline WarChild

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2002, 10:21:10 PM »
I would like to know if HTC has read this thread... don't have tow eigh in if they don't want too, just tell us they've seen it.   This is how I imaged bomber formations would turn out but they just havn't.  

Let us know you've read the thread guys... otherwise I'll give you a call in the morning and find out.  And maybe a bottle of Cragenmore if you implement it :)

Offline WarChild

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2002, 01:38:40 PM »
Guess this thread burned itself out....

Offline StracCop

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
      • http://www.digitaldioramas.com/
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2002, 01:50:03 PM »
Looks that way WarChild...

I just hope that the idea reached the decisions makers and that the proposal is given some serious consideration.

Shooting in the dark and 'wondering' if it has been heard is a bit frustrating.  Some might suggest using email to convey the concept but that would eliminate the possibility for community analysis and commentary regarding the idea, information that I'm sure would be of interest to HTC.

In any event, I'm glad I had the opportunity to share my idea with everyone and that the dialogue has been so mature and thoughtful.  I found it extremely valuable while I tried to synthesize all the various aspects associated with it.  I'm sure I missed some but what we ended up with was a pretty complete review.

Thanks again for the support and keep your fingers crossed! ;)

See you in the skies!

- Dave
"StracCop"
113th 'Lucky Strikes' Attack Squadron
A Knights Affiliated Squadron

Offline MWHUN

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 126
      • http://www.most-wanted.org
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2002, 02:51:29 PM »
This is a very good suggestion—bombers in general hold very little attraction for me, thus I’m not very good at it—however if I have the opportunity to not only add an extra pair of eyes/guns to the formation but also my ordinance to a dedicated buff driver—that would be more than worth my time!

Question: How would scoring work?  I would think that if you attach to a formation where the other guy is doing the hard work and you are just manning the guns—he should be the only one getting points for the drop—so if I attached my formation the only credits I would walk home with would be any gun kills…  yes/no… thoughts?

Offline DarkHawk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 341
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2002, 03:11:15 PM »
On you through of scoring. If the target is destroyed or damaged and you are part of that cause either gunning or the lead all should score the same. It is an all or nothing raid and your gunning leave him not to have to worry about fighter but can devote his time to a better calibration of the bomb sight and the deliver of the tonnage.


DarkHawk
49DHawk
XO for BOWL (DHawk)

Offline OLtad

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
      • http://thesquashers.com
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2002, 03:51:00 PM »
I like it!

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2002, 05:42:10 PM »
Strac,

Excellent idea overall - I'd love to see this implemented, and yes, I would have no problem letting a pilot who actually owns a sliderule and a scientific calculator do the bombing for me.

Some things have got to change before this can be implemented effectively though:

1) MIGRATING DAMAGE The "one hit all hit" system has got to go, having everyone loose their port engines or ball turret because one plane took a hit is just unacceptable.

2) DAMAGE MODEL/GUNS At present this system would just mean that a 190 or 47 pilot who knows what he is doing will get 12 free kills instead of 3. Buffs pop too easily and the guns are currently only up to Panzer IV pintle standard. Bring back the old buff toughness and guns and this would be a treat to fly.

Thanks Strac - simple, elegant, and worthwhile. This would be a GREAT asset in the mission arena.

HT if we promise not to complain about connection speeds or ask for the JU87 for a week can we have this - PUH-LEEEZE?

- Seagoon
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Master

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2002, 06:36:26 PM »
i vote the same thing goes for fighters.. this way you could have close formations of fighters too...

Offline Voss

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
      • http://www.bombardieraerospace.com
Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2002, 02:27:36 AM »
I haven't seen many of the buff bugs that I hear about. For instance, when I attack a buff and shoot an engine until it leaks, not all buff engines are leaking. However, one thing that bugs me a great deal is the warping that these formations introduce. With the recent lag issues this has become very pronounced. I think a formation of twelve aircraft would only compound this situation and we would hear an increase in the whine frequency (I'll even start the whines off by complaining that I'm wasting ammo. and my gunnery suffers, for no damn good reason).

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a very good idea (I've heard it somewhere else before, actually / ahem) but the current system needs to be looked after first.

Personally, before seeing this implemented I would like to see more of the larger maps introduced.