More on bombing...

[WhiteHawk]

Spent my morning trying to justify buff runs.  Went to the
training arena, practiced, then launched from a 10k base in the
pizza map.  
  Got my calibration down very well, actually, clobbbered a
airfield.  3 hangars destryed and some fuel and some ammo.
  Still, for 42000lbs of bombs, very minor damage.
Suggestion
  1.  When I click on my target to get my target alt, provide an
       automatic course correction for my plane to the target.
       Either automatically steer the plane to the heading or
       provide a course hdg.
      Justification..I dont have a 10 man crew and there is alot to
      do now while approaching the target.  Especially if
      fitrs are around.

 2.  Again I say it, model the damage radius more realistically.
      I blieve bombs were fused to go off before they hit the    
      ground, maximizing thier damage radaius.(I could be wrong)
      As a bomb goes off, the damage radius is more intense
     near the blast, and  tapers off as the distance grows.
     Airfield objects should accumulate damage as a percentage
    of destroyed  (100% is destroyed) with respect to the
    distance they are away from the blast and time (regen).
    Overlapping blast radii should cause damage in an accelerated
    manner, i.e. bombs falling within the same salvo create
   overlapping blast radii, and should be far more lethal than
  a bomb dropped after the blast sphere of a previous bomb
  has dissapated, even tho the lbs of bombs may be equal.
 
 
  Important to realize, bombers and bomber related sorties
(intercept and escort included) are (or were) the majority
before the new system.  Now, the buff game is nearly non-existant.
  I am willing to participate in any attempt to make the
game more realistic or, more importantly, fun, but just to
model the bombsight stops short of both these goals.

[Chairboy]

In regards to your final paragraph, I think you're right.  The only people that bomb with any regularity any more are hard core buff pilots like myself.

I've noticed that the skies are just about empty of bombers.  I'm sure the fighter pilot lobby is happy about this, considering how they hate the idea of someone being able to play the game and affect them without being in a fighter.

[Easyscor]

I found this to explain a lot.

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/aceshigh_interview_2002/
The interview was about a month ago at the CON.

HiTech: .... I'm trying to get bombers away from airfield bombardment; single targets I sort of want for the JABO [fighter-bomber] role. ...

The feeling was that one guy could "mess with too many other peoples fun."

[Demosthanese]

I thought the purpose of the MA was to simulate a war. If you  want to furball, start a H2H server and have fun.

[Wotan]

what you thought was wrong. A lot of guys fly and care nothing about base capture or the "war". In fact the war is never won it simply starts over.

HT has said he is looking into to making targets for bombers.

Jabos are designed for the attack mode, thats their roll. They have always done it better then bombers.

None of that has changed. Bombing just takes a bit more skill now. Its a welcomed change and if practiced and done correctly its quite effective.

My squaddie turbot flies bombers quite a bit. He loves it. Before this he never flew them. He may be willing to show you how its done if its too hard for yas.

Hes the reason why my squad is number 1 in the bomber ranks. Especially when half my squad doesnt even have 1 bomber sortie this tour. Like myself. I have always found bombers boring and atleast the new model adds alittle something to it to make it interesting.

[Easyscor]

Still at it eh Wotan?

No offense, but why does an avowed furballer keep messing around in every bomber thread?  Even after we've been thrown out of your sandbox you continue to tawnt the bomber pilots and particularly criticize those that still want to shut down airfields.  So long as the MA is capture the flag, people will want to use bombers to do it.

Now, rightfully it takes a squad effort to close airfields and keep them down.  Does this mean you'll be wanting indestructible airfields.

to Turbot. Funny thing about bomber pilots in AH, even someone ranked in the top ten will share information and encouragement fairly freely.

[WhiteHawk]

Well, I have to say, I was a 50% bomber 40% bomber hunter,
and 10% furballer be4 the new patch or update.
  I now still bomb somewhat, never buff hunt (whats to hunt?)
and furball (get my assed kicked) 30% of the time.  but I
Play AH 50% less than I used to.  
  I can score direct hits when I bomb 10k or below now.
  I like the new sites, I want them to stay.  But, for gods sake,
make the lethatlity of the bombs realistic!!!!
  My screen shots for some reason are 3 to 5 megs so I cant post them but, I put 42000lbs of bombs on target (town) this morning
killed most of it, but still 3 or 4 strucures remain.  Come on, If
i do the system properly, get me and my 2 goofs to the target,
calibrate properly, drop precisely, and direct hit the target,
reward me!!!  Where is the fire from these bombs? repeated
concussion of 42 1000lbers basting in a matter of 4 seconds
would jackhammer anything near!  A 3 lanc direct hit should
kill anything, up to and including,  a small airbase.  I am a gainst
a static 'if x tonsofbombs then airfielddead' line in the code,
 but a more realistic damge model is required ASAP!
Would be cool to see the wispy white concusion wake of the
blast too.

PS, about Hitechs statement, 'bombers ruin peoples fun'.
   
     
bombers were built to ruin other peoples fun.  

[WhiteHawk]

Let me guess, Wotan waits for a hvy jug to lug along so he can
sizzle his la7 in and bag the big ez cheese:D

[Sparks]

Originally quoted by Wotan

what you thought was wrong. A lot of guys fly and care nothing about base capture or the "war". In fact the war is never won it simply starts over.

Just because some in the MA choose not to take part in the "war"  does not make what Demosthanese said wrong. Like it or not the MA HAS been set up as a territorial war and many people do play that aspect of the game.

Originally quoted by Hitech

.... I'm trying to get bombers away from airfield bombardment; single targets I sort of want for the JABO [fighter-bomber] role. ...  

Originally quoted by Wotan

Jabos are designed for the attack mode, thats their roll. They have always done it better then bombers.

OK lets look at the real role that Heavy , Medium and Fighter Bombers had in WW2 .... extracts here from "Bomber and Fighter Tactics in Combat 7 December 1941 - 30 June 1943" published by the Office of the Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Intelligence, Washington DC.

Page 4

A.  The primary purpose of bombing is to destroy or disrupt the enemy's means and desire for war

B. This destruction and disruption may be brought about in 3 different areas:

1. At the point of origin of the enemy's effort - at factories, mines, refineries, training camps,and interior military installations. Long Range bombers are particularly suited for this purpose.

2. Along the lines of communication and supply - cargo ships, railroads, bridges, mountain passes and roads, and airdromes behind the theater of operations.  Medium bombers are suitable for many of these targets, although heavy bombers are also used where great distances are involved.

3. At the front - at the points where armed forces are in contact on the ground. Here fast light bombers, attack bombers and fighter-bombers for strafing and bombing of nearby enemy strong points are needed.

OK so how does the historical role of bombing match up with the direction of AH and HT's / Wotans views?? well what Wotan said is true but only in as far as local ground targets in support of ground offense / defense.  The bombardment of airfields was carried out by light, medium and heavy[/b] bombers.  HT's direction given in his interview IMHO is in danger of folding to the furballers - maybe thats not whats meant.

Is there evidence to say high altitude attacks on smaller targets happened - plenty. The Eight Airforce in Europe WW2 has many photos showing B17 attacks on individual bridges on the Rhine from 20K+.  Airfields were often secondary targets for even the big formation raids.  Although the altitude given is a lot lower, even the book I quoted from above gives direct note:-

Page34 - refers to operations in North Africa

A. B17's
......
3. Bombs were dropped from 21-23,000 feet if possible. When smaller formations attacked an airdrome, 8,000 feet was the release altitude.

There seems to be a blinkered view that the whole of WW2 bombing was carried out in the form of  1944-45 - after the decision to flatten the German cities.

To me the role and usefullness of the medium bombers in AH is, and will become more, questionable. The role of the Heavies will dissappear effectively and Jabo will be "the thing".  

HTC need to take a long look at what they want to achieve in the MA - is the Mission Theatre to become the place where planes take on their historical role and the MA to be the place for the air dogfighting game and if so how will that work ??  Or is the MA to become more in line with the roles of the aircraft - all aircraft and have the air dogfighting side affected by, and part of,  the bigger strategic game.  Either way and maybe others will work but I think we need to have a bit of clarity on where this is all heading.

Sparks

[Innominate]

First they complain about bombers ruining thier fun, killing thier furballs.
Now the griefers in question are the "suicide jabos", which aren't anything new.

If it'll kill a field, some furballer will squeak.
Only solution to the land-grabbers and buffs vs furballers problem is two seperate arenas.

[ET]

Well said -Sparks  

[AKDejaVu]

The bomber modeling is better than it has been.  Its also more difficult.  That, in and of itself, is why you see less of them.  Any 2 or 3 pilots flying a formation of bombers are going to be able to inflict heavy damage on any enemy field... easily closing it if they are profficient at bombing in formation.

Its just that one pilot can't do it anymore.  That is what most people were complaining about.  The ability to have each and every bomb placed precisely on a target.

People have spent some time and effort citing the bomber's role in WW2.  One thing that is missing from every example or use explained is the fact that no one bomber was sent on these missions.  They sent wings and squadrons to do it.  And they were more likely to miss their target than to hit it.  If you want to start citing history... get your story straight.

HTC has taken a big step in making bombing more realistic.  I commend them for that.  The modelling is accurate... the strat is not and will not be accurate.  The trick is figuring out just the right strat gimmick to make bombing more appealing.... not to make things more historical.  I seriously doubt that anyone really wants historical bombing in either the MA or CT.

Model the aircraft and their weapons accurately and historically.  Make up the rest as you go.

AKDejaVu

[Sparks]

AKD - no where has it been said that one pilot should be able to shut and airfield.  You are exactly right about the bomber model being correct and more difficult and that is a VERY good thing.

Again you are right that squadrons and wings were used ... on big targets - and here we go back to this tunnel vision of the 100+ raids of the 44 and 45.  Well bombing in the years before that was a different story.  My history is right - in the theatres other than the offensive of the German nation in 44/45 missions were often much smaller - even 6 - 10 bombers.

My point is this - the role of bombing, whether by medium, heavy or light bomber, has always been (and I quote again ) "..... is to destroy or disrupt the enemy's means and desire for war " - take particular note of the word means[/i].  Now in a game simulation like AH a decision has to be made whether the historical role of the aircraft is a part of the game, i.e. if bombers of whatever type are included then is their role going to be right.  That is a decision which straight away brings in the strategic element.

Originally quoted by AKDejaVu

The trick is figuring out just the right strat gimmick to make bombing more appealing.... not to make things more historical. I seriously doubt that anyone really wants historical bombing in either the MA or CT.

This phrase sums up to me perfectly the attitude that seems the fashionable thing at the moment - that bombing of any sort has to have some sort of kiddy reward to appeal to the clearly "fighter challenged".


Yes I do want historical bombing in the MA or wherever the campaign game ends up - as far as matching the aircraft to its original role[/i].  I want to be able to take a few Mossies low level to bomb some depot or airfield or factory somewhere.  I want to be able to run a big high alt mission to flatten a town or a take a few to take out a bridge or airfield structures.  I want to be able to take A20's low level to attack shipping.  And yes I want the magnitude and sucess or failure of these raids to have and effect on the enemy's means to wage war.


Originally quoted by AKDejaVu

Model the aircraft and their weapons accurately and historically. Make up the rest as you go.

I would be seriously interested in other peoples view on this statement.  How many agree with AKD??

Sparks (getting armour plated flame suit on)

[AKDejaVu]

This phrase sums up to me perfectly the attitude that seems the fashionable thing at the moment - that bombing of any sort has to have some sort of kiddy reward to appeal to the clearly "fighter challenged".

You seriously error with your use of the term "fighter challenged".  Its a matter of people wanting instant gratification no matter what they fly.  This is not specific to fighter pilots nor bomber pilots.  Its the primary motivator behind "ack is too lethal" or "bombing is too hard" types of complaints... most of them starting with "this is total BS!".

As for your historical reference to number of bombers... I said 3 pilots could level anything.  That's 9 planes.  I do believe that is on a realistic scale historically.  Often times, the arguments are based on the capabilities of a single pilot flying seby himself... those cannot be compared to realistic scenarios.  Basically... the problem with most bomber pilots in the MA is the lack of a "wingman".

In AH, we have aircraft destroying and capturing bases and rapidly moving a false-front halfway across a country in a manner of minutes.  Try to apply realistic strategies to that.  How long does it take for bombing a ball-bearing factory to affect aircraft manufacturing capabilities?  How many airfields were completely destroyed, aircraft and all via bomber raids early in the war?  Even late in the war?  Events that were rare in a real war are the norm in AH.

AKDejaVu

[Sparks]

I think we may be agreeing violently on some points here AKD.

I have to back pedal a bit here - I've re-read your previous post and WhiteHawks and have to agree with what you say in your first paragraph - and yes it matches what I was saying about historical raid sizes.  WhiteHawks contention that 42000lbs (about 20 tons) of munitions should level a town is wrong - the damage he did to an airfield on a solo run is about right.

I think where the "red haze" went over my eyes was when you mentioned creating "gimmicks" for the strat and Wotan saying the HT was "making targets for bombers" as if they would be an aside to the game to pacify the few.  As to my use of "fighter challenged" - well thats how I percieve much of how the anti-bomber posts - that those who are pro-buff only take that view because they can't fly fighters.

Originally quoted by AKDejaVu

In AH, we have aircraft destroying and capturing bases and rapidly moving a false-front halfway across a country in a manner of minutes. Try to apply realistic strategies to that. How long does it take for bombing a ball-bearing factory to affect aircraft manufacturing capabilities? How many airfields were completely destroyed, aircraft and all via bomber raids early in the war? Even late in the war?

Isn't that quite ironic - the main discussion is that one person in a buff shouldn't be able to close an airfield in minutes which "ruins a bunch of peoples fun" and yet hordes of Jabo's are doing exacly that in the MA every day.  You are right that we can't apply realistic strategies to the game at the moment and that is my point. Fighter bombers never closed an airfield and only raided frontline strips in fast in / fast out attacks.  Bomber raids probably didn't completely destroy airfields but they did restrict and disable them - look at the German raids on Biggin Hill and other Southern fields.  

Events that were rare in a real war are the norm in AH.

And that I think is the problem.  What I am saying is that ALL aircrafts' roles in AH should at least try to match their real role - how that fits gameplay is a matter of the detail of the strat.

If you take the view you that you did in your first post AKD that "Model the aircraft and their weapons accurately and historically. Make up the rest as you go. " Then I believe - and it is only my view - that you might as well have Tiefighter Star Wars graphics with the AH physics as it removes a large part of the experience.  Surely the popularity of Scenarios and TOD etc show people like the "real world" aspect of the aircraft they "fly" in AH.  The aircraft had roles and to ignore it to me is nonesense.

It comes down to what people want out of the game and where HTC want to take it in the end.  

Sparks