Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: dudedog on August 25, 2000, 02:16:00 PM
-
Well I think everyone agrees that bomb accuracy is rediculously high. I think it should be reduced to the point of getting a 50/50 chance at killing an ack from 10k with a 250lb. We should also soften the hangers and buildings. A 1k bomb is CRAZY and I doubt there were ANY buildings that could take a direct hit and survive. This would accomplish 2 things.
#1 Bring the buffs down to realistic alts. i.e. at 20k pickling 3 1ks "might" get a hanger. At 10k alt it would be almost gaurenteed. I think this is a much more realistic scenario. And it doesn't detract from the lone B-17 being able to significantly hurt a base, it'd just have to be lower to ensure accuracy.
#2 Increase the effectiveness of JABO style attacks. I'm sorry but I feel that a direct hit from a 1k should destroy almost anything. I'd like to be able to see structures destroyed in one pass. I also have a thread on aa accuracy that ties into this.
These 2 changes wouldn't be too hard to change and I think would greatly enhance the game play. Whaddya think, can we try it?
-
Here is my post on the AGW board. Not everything applies to AH yet - we have no tactical bombers for starters, yet. But it may be relevant sooner or later:
=================================
Topic: May be trying to fix the wrong thing here.
My, what a heated and personal discussion about something so innocent as a random bomb drift in a computer game.
Incredible number of stupid opinions bordering on paranoia.
To "bomber defenders" - chill down. Nobody is trying to get rid of the bombers in WB. Those fighter pilots who do not like them, do not engage them.
There are lots of things to do besides attacking the bombers in WB.
Quite the opposite, there can be many more bombers flying if some changes were made to the whole bombing concept while making the "war" more realistic for all of us - bombers and fighters.
At the same time, just introducing the bomb drift and changing nothing else is going to kill the whole level bombing bisness in WB. So fixing the exessive bombing accuracy is the very wrong thing to do first. Yes, the laser-guided bombs from 30K are unrealistic, but at least there is some gameplay going on.
The major flaw with the current design is the use of the strategic level bombers for tactical bombing. It has several causes and many implications, none of them good.
The level bombers were always used against the area targets. That is impossible in WB because there are no such targets. Or rather, the targets require direct hits to be destroyed. The effects of the blast are negligible compared to the real life. So it becomes necessary to deliver a pinpoint strike.
Contrary to all reality, it is much easier to do that (hit an ack dead center) from a Fort flying at 30K then from a dive-bomber like Ju87. As if an ack should need a dead center hit to be destroyed.
As a result, very few people are flying tactical bombers.
Also, it is not that easy trying to learn pinpoint bombing from 30K, so very few new players do it after a first try.
A (very) few bomber pilots who mastered that completely unrealistic art reject any changes, but really they are backing the system that prevents more people from flying bombers, while they think they are trying to preserve the bombers in WB.
Here is what could be done:
1. Make the random bomb drift depending on the altitude.
2. Make the targets (fields, cities, etc.) suseptible to caret bombing. Blast effects should be more pronounced on most structures and cumulative.
A few hardened structures, like bunkers, may need much close blasts to damage them or direct hits, but direct hits should be damaging even with smaller bombs.
Most structures could get much weaker in general because they will be much less likely to be hit dead center. So a near hit from a smaller bomb will have some effect. While level bombers will be just as effective (less accuracy offset by more damage from blast and more bombs in the salvo), Jabo and tactical bombers will be able to score some with closely-delivered smaller/fewer bombs.
The values of the blast effect, target hardness and bomb drift should be adjusted in such way that an experienced bomber on average achieved the same result in closing or damaging the field or other target.
The huge difference would be that a newbie would be able to fly and carpet bomb the same target and may be get 10-20% of the effect of an experienced pilot, not zero like it is now! He would still get some acknowlegement for his efforts and an encouragement to continue flying.
So a few less exrienced bombers will be able to combine and achieve the same result as one experienced guy. They will learn in the process.
There will be many more bombers flying around. Many fighter pilots will be trying bombing once in a while, so when not flying bombers they will be more likely to provide an escort. And they will know something about the issues the bombers face first-hand.
There will be more incentive to fly bombers lower to trade the safety of high alt for the improved accuracy and shorter flight time.
With shorter and more rewarding bombing missions there will be even more bombers around. Also while bombers will be flying lower then now, the fighters will be flying higher - fewer of those low-level aimless furballs. Escort missions will be more easily accepted because they will be more certain to see action.
The tactical bombers - Ju87 and Mossie, maybe even US/Japanese navy dive-bombers will see action for the quick suppression of some targets where a level bombing raid is excessive.
Ju-88 will be more effective because it combines the qualities of a tactical and strategic bomber. The Axis side will not suffer that much because of their bomber disparity.
Allies will have their strategic bombers and Axis have great interceptors specifically designed against those.
At the same time Axis will have more effective medium/tactical bombers - Ju88, Ju87, Bf110 and Allies will have to watch for those.
So the whole setup will be much, much more realistic.
The great bomber pilots will still be great.
There will be many more people, including fighter pilots, flying bombers with some success at least part time.
There will be more flying planes variety with tactical bombers having something to do and being able to do it better then level bombers.
What do you think?
============================
miko--
-
My eyes are hurting (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
In my experience, killing heavy bombers below 20k is a relatively easy thing to do (too easy perhaps). Just drop down on them from on top. Killing heavies at 28k is a different matter however.
Do not force buffs down low by penalizing bombing accuracy.
Sure, make bomb dispertion a configurable item for historical scenarios -but for main arena play, leave it as is. High altitude is about the only good defense for a bomber.
Yeager
-
I agree that 3K bombs to destroy a tin hangar is too much, but if it is reduced to 1K, then fields will go down so fast it will detract from game play. Right now 5 or 6 jabos can close a field in about a minute. If the hangar hardness is reduced by 2/3, then fields will fall even easier, maybe only 3 jabos necessary.
My idea is to rearrange the map so that each A field has 2 friendly V fields within close spawning distance, so that in the event of an attack on the A field, vehicles could spawn from the V fields and be close enough to the A field (maybe 1/2 mile) to provide immediate support. This way you have to hit the V fields first if you want to take the A field. We could even eliminate the vehicle hangar on the A field.
Also, by capturing a V field, you could spawn vehicles for a quick attack (once the hangar comes up) on a nearby A field. Right now V fields mostly go unused.
This way there would be more meaningful ground battles so tankers would be happy, and hangar hardness could be reduced to more realistic levels without making A fields too easy to capture. Attacks would have to be better planned, and defense would have to be active, not just passively relying on tough hangars to defeat the attack.
ra
-
Yep. Found the reason. Refresh rate 60hz because new drivers.
IMO Miko's ideas could be a way to make sim more like rl(tm).
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 08-25-2000).]
-
RA, I agree with you, it's just that it's a much bigger change than the realtively simple changes I suggested. But I also want to point out that defending your airbases in real life was a top priority. Just a few heavy p-47's or 38's could totally destroy a field. So are we going to toughen bases in interest of gameplay, or make them realistic in interest of a true simulation, THAT is the question. I personally go for realism, if that means you have to be extra carefull to intercept bombers and fighter-bombers, so be it, that's how it was... And since it applies to every country it wouldn't be an un-ballance'ing change, I would just forsee more incapacited fields resulting in people having to take off from futher fields.
Yeager, I think buffs are reasonably tough and well defended. I think I would have at least a 50/50 chance versus any single aircraft in any situation. And 20+k is IMO high enough. Historically most b-17 cruised about 23k and were not incredibly accurate. I think the suggested accuracy I gave was a bit generous even, but you have to make up for lack of buffs somehow.
[This message has been edited by dudedog (edited 08-25-2000).]
-
<Beef drops in for a quick sec>
Guys you do know that the norden does NOT have a 100% accuracy. Line up the norden on a fighter hanger and drop a bomb dead center on it. I'll bet you 100 bucks that you miss. Bombing does take skill, it's not simply clickclickclick, boomboomboom, you have to know when to drop the bombs, or else you miss. Thank you
<Beef steps out>
-
Decrease sight accuracy and also decrease damage requirements of every structure except the AAA which dies pretty darn EZ now.
Also put one or two AA guns at everybase and 3 or 4 40mm at each vehicle base.
-
leave the sight and accuracy, decrease zoom magnification range
-
Did Nordens have a telescopic lens? If so, how powerful? That is how powerful the zoom should be in our bomb sights.
One thing that is cool is that when a field has been hit the smoke obscures some of the smaller targets, so it's real hard to finish without jabos.
ra
-
Uhm, decrease damage required to fix the hi alt buff thing, and one P-47 can close down a field.
Think HTC got it pretty close to right. Maybe up the hangar down time with say 5 minutes and see how it affects gameplay - if it is too radical, change back.
Shouldn't be too hard for HTC to implement code wise.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Easiest thing to do would be to add alot more stuff at fields. Like 10 FH or something to that matter.
Only problem is it would kill frame rates, even more so when burning (I'd rather not see hangers burn (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
Anyway, the hangers could be made weaker then.
Lots of hangers (or hangers at all) or not all that historical at front line fields, but neither are tin hangers with unlimited planes taking 3 1k bomb concussions to kill them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
Btw we need smoke rising from the bomb craters for at least a few seconds after the blast (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Maybe a nice fire ball?
-
My idea for the structure damage: Total pounds of bombs to destroy should be no more than 2K. Each "hit" on the hangar should do damage in such a way to either limit the number of fighters that can scramble from that hangar, or, increase the amount of time it takes for the pilots to hit the runway and respawn. Allowing the hangars to continue to spit out fighters when they have been tagged with a couple 1K bombs and one very near miss does not reflect any damage to the structure; progressively limiting the number of planes available to defend the base as hangar damage increases seems right, IMHO.
Have no opinion on the bombing accurace issue, as I have not flown a lot of buff sorties. However, I did notice that I hit what I wanted to hit without fail, even from 30K in a B17, which was not wholly accurate from a "real life" standpoint. Decreasing the amount of zoom/magnification would go a long ways toward bringing the buffs down a bit, that is, if they want to hit anything with any degree of consistency.
Was not included in the thread, but IMHO, the buff guns should only be effective out to max range from the occupied gunner's position; all the other gunner positions should have their effectiveness reduced to maybe 650-700 yards max. Making the buff guys move to the correct position to defend their ships might take away the "Puff the Magic Dragon" effect we see now, with all available guns firing at the attacking fighter, all controlled from one gunner's position. Just my opinion though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by eddiek (edited 08-28-2000).]
[This message has been edited by eddiek (edited 08-28-2000).]
-
Lets remember that the hanger is symbolic. It is not really a hanger but the ability of the airfield to lauch aircraft. It would take way more than 3k of bombs to really stop air operations at a field..So if we are talking about Reality(tm) lets remember that we would have to do more than heavily damage one building to stop the lauching of aircraft.
-
Just abscure the view the higher you go. Put haze or fog or just plain old smog in the game. The bomb sites wernt that accruate I dont think anyway.(in real life that is)
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Indians Home page were links to help pages can be found.
Indian's Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
-
Regarding bomb sight accuracy - b17s carpet bombed in large numbers, from high alt didn't they? By making the sights too inaccurate you risk effectively making the b17 a useless plane in AH, since you rarely get more than two bombing a field.
-
Add bomb dispersion and/or haze to make it hard to hit individual targets above StratoBuffDweeb altitude (tm), then make bomb craters more hazardous and make the ground around runways more lumpy.
This would allow a StratoBuffDweeb to saturation bomb an airfield to crater the runway(s). Light fighters could roll on the grass, but heavy fighters and bombers would have to use the runway and avoid the craters.
popeye
-
I agree that the hangars represent the ability to launch aircraft, but along those same lines, a buff laying a string of 1K eggs down the runway, especially near each end where the spawn points are, would negate the defenders's ability to scramble. As it is, cratering the runway doesn't affect anything. I have tried it, and the enemy planes rolled right through the craters with no apparent problems.
That makes it more difficult for the attackers, as you have just wasted a load of eggs to blast a runway, and the blast damage has no effect on the defenders' ability to come after you. Same for the hangars....in a more "realistic" situation, cratering the spawn points, then dropping eggs at each end of the hangars would all but paralyze the defenders, much as in real life.
A little change toward this, to me, would actually enhance the game, and killing the buffs before they could paralyze the base would become of the utmost importance.
As for the phrase, "stratoubuffdweebs", try it first before you put them down. I flew a buff a few times, had a devil of a time defending the darn thing as whenever I rotated the turret or swiveled the guns to shoot at the attacker, the whole plane turned too, along with banking and tilting and generally rocking all over the place rather than continuing to fly straight. Defending the buff is harder than it looks.
-
I mean no offense to the StratoBuffDweebs. I admit to being a Dweeb of many hats. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I flew a B-17 above 30k once, fighters couldn't touch me. (Of course, that was before the P-38 and P-47 were available.) Didn't have any trouble controlling the plane or guns.
popeye
-
Eddiac
Most of these were grass fields, they didnt have spawn points...they had dispersals, how do you drop 4 bombs and really close a dispersed fighter strip?
-
Hmmm, I drive a buff fairly often. I think the zoom factor is a good point. I mean I want to hit the target, but it is easy when you’re 25-30 and salvo set to 3. I’ll kill FH’s or BH every time. True, you can’t aim dead center on the hanger. But the “kill” spot is the same every time, any field. I like the zoom when I’m flyin the buff, but I would agree to the zoom being takin out.
Not to mention Buffs have the F3 advantage too. That may not help droppin eggs but it sure helps see what around you before you do.
Hehe, could we leave all the same, take out zoom, and give 2 more 1K’s? I.e. 8 1k’s for 17?
As far as acks go, if they’re gonna be as accurate as they are, let em be. Especially the 88’s! Those things are really something! I think a 250 eggs is a pretty good punch for an ack.
I think the damaged hanger less planes is good idea too. Damage hanger = fewer planes etc. Or at least planes with problems i.e. maintenance issues. Damaged plane hanger, damaged plane in hanger.
Jabo’s… I suck in them hehe. As far as dive bombin anyway. My hats off to guys who can drop a good 1k with any of the P planes. (Whispers: I miss the dive bomb sight of AWIII) Uh um anyway I digress. Anyone here try to rally enough guys to do a jabo run? Anyone? Yes, they happen. But not so often to be concerned. I think that is good reason to leave hanger settings be.
IF you did change damage settings, then increase the number of troops to capture. Thus the base will be ineffective but not so easily captured. That to me is more realistic. Increase the number of troops to 20 instead of ten. Say, within a 5 minute time frame.
I’ll stop now cause it’s 1am and I forgot what this thread was about (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
That is all…
------------------
jehu
Airwolves
-
Think in its own way this may go along the subject line but don't want to branch this thread, but here goes.
Rather new to AH & haven't been in every grid square yet so I'm not sure this is 100% true - but one thing really stands out & puzzles me:
Why are all airfield classes [small, med, large] & each facility type all oriented the same direction no matter where you go in the AH world? Don't think I've even seen so much as a variation where the same class or type of target is layed out on one of the other 11 cardinal headings for variety.
Once you establish a bombing approach & pass pattern on one particular kind of target you can predictably use the plan on the rest of the targets of the same type. What bothers me is that it makes things seem so.... predictable.
Am I just looking at things with a jaunticed eye or some new kind of paranoia? Please tell me if I'm wrong!
-
Maybe changes from dispersion of bombs would be welcome.. right now bombs drops almost right at the spot you aim.
and wind / altitude makes bombs disperse off target.. maybe addition of *random* wind would make this bit tougher.
-
leave it alone.6 or 7 players to take one field weakens there defense just enough to make taking an enemy base challenging and risky. Buffs need altitude to stay alive. If you drop the accuracy then give buffs more lethel defense.
-
Since we're talking about bomb damage......
Why don't I ever see anyone bombing the runways as well? Does AH not model craters that can damage ur plane if you tried to roll thru them?
I understand that hitting the FH would be easier to take down a field but I'm thinking along lines of carpet bombing raids.
???
Wingnut