Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: muzik on June 06, 2013, 10:23:02 PM
-
The current string of threads about bombers, 163s and strats got me thinking about an old suggestion.
Large bomber formations
Implementation...
A bomber takes off and is followed in succession just as currently modeled, only with 23 drones to compose a formation. The bomber pilot must circle the base for the (historically accurate) form-up within a specified radius. Failure to do so results in lost drones. Drones take off at realistic intervals.
Once drones have formed up, pilot may proceed to target. Which brings me to a secondary and also previously requested suggestion.
AI gunners for the formation.
Implementation...
AI gunners within a formation have varied skill levels with the better gunners placed in the most critical guns. AI gunners can fire in multiple directions against multiple attackers. Players can choose to take any position or none at all.
Perhaps AI skill levels can improve with longevity. For example, Each bomber in the formation is numbered; if bombers 12 and 19 continue to survive missions and better yet acquire kills on those missions, the AI skill level on those aircraft increases to a realistic level, not to the uncommon levels that can be seen in AH.
Validation for large formations...
- Complaints that the recent wind changes make bombing too difficult.
- Complaints it's hard to find fights.
- More bang for the buck.
- Reduction in unrealistic maneuvering.
- Complaints that 163s deter bomber pilots from participation
- New player benefits
The complaints I've seen about bombing accuracy after the wind change seemed to be a knee jerk reaction related to scores. Regardless, the ridiculously accurate results bombers have been getting for years should never be brought back. Combined with the more realistic randomness of bomb hits, large formations will produce more realistic bombing experience and results. The novelty of a change like this would probably placate any lingering wind worries.
A single fighter that attacks a single bomber formation is potentially provided with more entertainment with no increase in player population. The bomber pilot survives to rtb more often, the fighter pilots get more kills and spends less time looking for fights, etc.
This is especially important on late nights when Euro players may be getting less game for the same dollars spent by US players. Additional arguments can be made along this line.
With 24 bombers, the ability for a formation to endure the less realistic, hard maneuvers that can be seen in game should be reduced along with the gamey factor. Formations would have to make longer, wider turns if they choose to make second passes on the same base.
The odds of success for the bomber pilot increase as the risk to all fast moving attackers increases with more risk of collision or random hits by AI gunners.
New players will have better success in shorter periods of time and enjoy a feature that is not found in any other sim that I am aware of. Additional advantages described below.
Validation for AI gunners...
- New players and learning curve.
- Fighters have an unfair advantage against bombers even if they have 2 gunners.
- Bombers shouldn't be such easy prey and unprotected from multiple fighters from multiple directions.
- Bomber mission inadequacies.
New players have enough of a learning curve without learning to gun from a bomber. A certain amount of success is required early on or only the most devoted or motivated will stay. An inexperienced player may not even have the skill to land for months let alone get kills. Doesn't have to be easy mode, but there should be a little more chance.
Always been this way, fighters are at an advantage until the gunner positions are mastered and that is not too common.
Again, it's unrealistic and an unfair advantage when two or more fighters hit bombers from multiple directions.
Even when players gather enough to build large missions, they rarely have the cohesiveness to stay in a tight formation where they might provide mutual fire support.
BRING IT ON FLAMERS. :D
-
Huh. You don't ask for much do ya? :D
-
Huh. You don't ask for much do ya? :D
Understatement the year.
-
you do realize if formations are increased in number the amount of ords needed to drop any object is going to increase as well...just like asking for the ability to carry more troops.
nice concept...might happen when the nuke is introduced.
-
Fat Man
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Fat_man.jpg)
"Fat Man" was the codename for the atomic bomb that was detonated over Nagasaki, Japan, by the United States on August 9, 1945. It was the second of two nuclear weapons to be used in warfare to date (the other being "Little Boy"), and its detonation caused the third man-made nuclear explosion. The name also refers more generically to the early nuclear weapon designs of U.S. weapons based on the "Fat Man" model. It was an implosion-type weapon with a plutonium core, similar to "The Gadget", the experimental device detonated less than a month earlier on July 16 at Alamogordo Air Field, New Mexico.[1] "Fat Man" was possibly named after Winston Churchill,[2] though Robert Serber said in his memoirs that as the "Fat Man" bomb was round and fat, he named it after Sydney Greenstreet's character of "Kasper Gutman" in The Maltese Falcon.
The original target for the bomb was the city of Kokura, but obscuring clouds necessitated changing course to the alternative target, Nagasaki. "Fat Man" was dropped from the B-29 bomber Bockscar, piloted by Major Charles Sweeney of the 393rd Bombardment Squadron, Heavy, and following a 43-second duration free fall, exploded at 11:02 AM (JST), at an altitude of about 1,650 feet (500 m), with a yield of about 21 kilotons of TNT or 88 terajoules.[3] The Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works, the factory that manufactured the type 91 torpedoes released in the attack on Pearl Harbor, was destroyed in the blast.[4] Because of poor visibility due to cloud cover, the bomb missed its intended detonation point, and damage was somewhat less extensive than that in Hiroshima. An estimated 40,000 people were killed outright by the bombing at Nagasaki, and a further 25,000 were injured.[5] Thousands more died later from related blast and burn injuries, and hundreds more from radiation illnesses from exposure to the bomb's initial radiation. The bombing raid on Nagasaki had the third highest fatality rate in World War II[6] after the nuclear strike on Hiroshima[7][8][9][10] and the March 9/10 1945 Operation Meetinghouse firebombing raid on Tokyo.[11]
^ Hakim, Joy (1995). A History of Us: War, Peace and all that Jazz. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509514-6.
^ "1945: Atom bomb hits Nagasaki". BBC News. August 9, 1945. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
^ What was the yield of the Hiroshima bomb?
^ Cook, Haruko & Theadore (1992). Japan at War: An Oral History. New York: The New Press. ISBN 0-7322-5605-4.
^ The Avalon Project : The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
^ The Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9, 1945
^ Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2
^ Frequently Asked Questions - Radiation Effects Research Foundation
^ Radiobiology for the radiologist. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 6th edition. Chapter 10, Sections 3,4,5.
^ The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima, August 6, 1945
^ Richard B. Frank, Downfall, p. 17–18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Fat_Man_Internal_Components.png)
-
and BOING!!! wish granted
If you want to play this kind of scenario, go build and play a staged mission...
You can flop around with as many bombers in a single formation as you like with as many fighters/escorts as you like... Best part is you can play it by yourself or with some friends...
-
you do realize if formations are increased in number the amount of ords needed to drop any object is going to increase as well...just like asking for the ability to carry more troops.
Yes and no. Yes more bombs could be carried, but the formation would only be for carpet bombing, true you could get 3-4 bombers to hit the hanger, but the rest would just carpet the area around it. Towns and Factories would be the only ones were it would work effectively.
-
Little Boy
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Little_boy.jpg)
"Little Boy" was the codename for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay, piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbets of the 393rd Bombardment Squadron, Heavy, of the United States Army Air Forces. It was the first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon. The second, the "Fat Man", was dropped three days later on Nagasaki.[3]
The weapon was developed by the Manhattan Project during World War II. It derived its explosive power from the nuclear fission of uranium 235. The Hiroshima bombing was the second artificial nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity test, and the first uranium-based detonation. Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams of matter in the bomb was converted into the active energy of heat and radiation (see mass–energy equivalence for detail). It exploded with an energy of 16 kilotons of TNT (67 TJ).[4] It has been estimated by neutral sources that 90,000–166,000 people had died as a result of its use by the end of December 1945.[5][6] Its design was not tested in advance, unlike the more complex plutonium bomb (Fat Man). The available supply of enriched uranium was very small at that time, and it was thought that the simple design of a uranium "gun" type bomb was so sure to work that there was no need to test it at full scale.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png
-
Anyone else get the impression that Arlo has just found out about Wiki?
-
Yes and no. Yes more bombs could be carried, but the formation would only be for carpet bombing, true you could get 3-4 bombers to hit the hanger, but the rest would just carpet the area around it. Towns and Factories would be the only ones were it would work effectively.
that would require changing the bomb current bomb dispersion system...they all hit what the lead bomber is aiming at. no need for more than 2 drones as it is. if someone wants massive bomber formations, start teaching bomber wannabes how to fly in formation, navigate and fight as a group.
-
that would require changing the bomb current bomb dispersion system...they all hit what the lead bomber is aiming at. no need for more than 2 drones as it is.
There is already dispersion in the bomb drops, Not miles worth but it is still there. Adding to that is the fact your drones bombs are dropped from where they are in relation to your plane. A large formation do not all stack up on the one point. they will be spread out in their box at different alts, this forces the spread onto the drop.
(http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/67/Combatbox.gif)
-
Anyone else get the impression that Arlo has just found out about Wiki?
Oh yeah man. Just bought my first PC today, as well. Before this I was playing AH telepathically.
:D
-
but the formation would only be for carpet bombing, true you could get 3-4 bombers to hit the hanger, but the rest would just carpet the area around it. Towns and Factories would be the only ones were it would work effectively.
Bingo. I never heard anything about how bomb dispersion works in game. I only know that at low level all bombs originate from their respective bombers and spread accordingly. Why they seem to hit a single point from altitude is beyond me because I rarely fly bombers.
you do realize if formations are increased in number the amount of ords needed to drop any object is going to increase as well...
I did anticipate that but like Fish said, there will be dispersal. How much change there should be to the objects is debatable.
and BOING!!! wish granted
If you want to play this kind of scenario, go build and play a staged mission...
You can flop around with as many bombers in a single formation as you like with as many fighters/escorts as you like... Best part is you can play it by yourself or with some friends...
You couldn't have missed the point any further. I don't fly bombers, only rarely do i hunt them because it's just not as fun as a dogfight and I'm not looking for any scenario at all. My post was for the overall good of the game. Thanks for your comment. When you come up with an intelligent objection I'll be sure to take it into consideration.
-
There is already dispersion in the bomb drops, Not miles worth but it is still there. Adding to that is the fact your drones bombs are dropped from where they are in relation to your plane. A large formation do not all stack up on the one point. they will be spread out in their box at different alts, this forces the spread onto the drop.
(http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/67/Combatbox.gif)
you might want to go look at the bomb dispersion again. use single bomb salvo and not from 5000 feet, go to 15000 and higher where level bombers should be dropping from (if they want a chance to land).
You couldn't have missed the point any further. I don't fly bombers, only rarely do i hunt them because it's just not as fun as a dogfight and I'm not looking for any scenario at all. My post was for the overall good of the game. Thanks for your comment. When you come up with an intelligent objection I'll be sure to take it into consideration.
unfortunately your idea misses the target. there are ramifications and changes that would be needed, that you haven't considered.
-
unfortunately your idea misses the target. there are ramifications and changes that would be needed, that you haven't considered.
Another validation that I almost listed but chose not to because I didn't want to elaborate on was a new direction for the game. I considered much more than I stated in the op.
I considered the fact that strats, bases or towns might be completely decimated by fewer attackers. It would force changes as to how we capture towns and effectively how the war is fought.
-
one way (out of a few) that i could picture it working is with perked ords and each additional drone over the initial 3 costing perk points (limit the max number of drones to 11), then change the bomb dispersion. continue to allow only 1 gunner. no matter what, certain people would do whatever they could get away with to farm perk points.
base structure hardness would probably have to change as well in order to prevent a single person (with a ton of bomber perks to burn) from being able to shut down even a large air base in a single pass. that change would end up making any ordnance available to attack aircraft ineffective for anything but gvs.
if the idea is an attempt to make strat runs more appealing, there are better ways...make them worth something to those willing to spend 2 hours getting on target, then make thier destruction actually mean something to the war effort and make it more difficult to resupply them.
-
one way (out of a few) that i could picture it working is with perked ords and each additional drone over the initial 3 costing perk points
This works against all of the stated intents because...
-Historical realism (for those who care) wasn't typically 3 B24s on a bombing mission.
-Safety/survivability/success (for new players or vets) offers new players some success early on instead of months or years of struggle. It's bad for the game growth. Same goes for vets facing long odds.
-Game marketability all around, but especially in time zones where peak hours are not as populated, would increase. This is a unique feature. It's more realistic. It's more fun. 24 in formation would look a million times better than 3 in formation or even the gaggle of 3s you sometimes see.
-And for any other reason I stated...
continue to allow only 1 gunner. no matter what, certain people would do whatever they could get away with to farm perk points.
I'm not stuck on AI gunners so I would concede that, but I'm not sure what perk farming you're talking about. Whatever it is, the perk system is easily adjusted to lower perks and make it unthinkable.
base structure hardness would probably have to change as well in order to prevent a single person (with a ton of bomber perks to burn) from being able to shut down even a large air base in a single pass. that change would end up making any ordnance available to attack aircraft ineffective for anything but gvs.
This is where I think the most change would revolve around. I don't like the "base shut down" aspect of the game. It was a simple basic concept that served as a good starting point for a game like AH, but it needs to be put to bed for a richer, more complex game.
I'm not saying this has to happen, if changing object hardness is the only way that would be allowed then oh well.
My thought; bomber pilots need 3 things, targets, a sense of purpose and a challenge. Bases at this point are the most available [targets] so let them stay that way, but don't shut down a base just because a building is blown up. Give them points for destroying buildings or even hits on the field. Use the Air Warrior system of diminishing combat ability the more the base is hit. Every bomb that hits a field could cause a drop in "readiness" and points for the bomber pilot. Give us runway craters to effect take offs and landings.
Towns, could be destroyed for points and for diminishing effect on "morale." I know we don't have a function for morale. But we could easily. It could be a simple effect like decreasing rebuild time for the base and the town. The amount of effect a single formation would have on morale/rebuild time could be so small it would take 20 accurate sorties to have a significant effect or it could be 5 sorties. It would depend on how the game plays out and it would have to be tweaked.
As far as capturing towns, again, if the old way just won't go away then obviously the building hardness would have to be addressed, but that doesn't mean bombers couldn't continue to bomb for morale or for any other effect. Personally I think a different way to capture should be implemented.
if the idea is an attempt to make strat runs more appealing, there are better ways...make them worth something to those willing to spend 2 hours getting on target, then make thier destruction actually mean something to the war effort and make it more difficult to resupply them.
The idea never was to make strat runs more appealing, although that cannot be ignored and is easily accomplished by making strats the biggest point payoff.
The idea was to make the game more fun for all concerned, to provide more targets and success for fighters of all skill levels, to provide more success to bombers of all skill levels, to provide an artificial boost to non-peak hours, to provide a sliver of realism to the look and feel of bombing missions and perhaps to begin to move the game in a new direction...
I appreciate your input. <S>
-
Again, it's unrealistic and an unfair advantage when two or more fighters hit bombers from multiple directions.
How is it unrealistic?
ack-ack
-
Oh yeah man. Just bought my first PC today, as well. Before this I was playing AH telepathically.
:D
Well that certainly explains your K/D ratio :D
-
How is it unrealistic?
ack-ack
What reason would a b17 crew have for firing all guns in one direction while a second attacker comes in from another?
-
Well that certainly explains your K/D ratio :D
Yeah. I used to get so depressed about it. Now, instead of keeping track of that, I go shag the neighbor's cat every half dozen times I get shot down. Almost makes getting shot down worth it but it's hard to explain to the old lady if my timing's off.
-
this is where you're going to get a lot of resistance...
This works against all of the stated intents because...
-Historical realism (for those who care) wasn't typically 3 B24s on a bombing mission.
-Safety/survivability/success (for new players or vets) offers new players some success early on instead of months or years of struggle. It's bad for the game growth. Same goes for vets facing long odds.
-Game marketability all around, but especially in time zones where peak hours are not as populated, would increase. This is a unique feature. It's more realistic. It's more fun. 24 in formation would look a million times better than 3 in formation or even the gaggle of 3s you sometimes see.
-And for any other reason I stated...
you're just thinking of u.s. bomber formations that were developed during the strategic bombing initiative to increase the survivability of bomber crews. the thing is, the russians, germans, japanese and other countries thought differently and used different tactics. if historical realism is part of your intent, then the u.s. and british heavy bombers would be the only ones allowing a 3 plane box formation. there are accounts of u.s. medium bomber missions in the pto that only used 3 or 4 bombers instead of the hundreds used in europe.
safety and survivability is a matter of player learning and interaction...just giving them more drones won't increase their survivability.
12 total planes in a formation of 4 boxes with 3 planes in each box would a lot more workable than 24. think about how far they would be spread out and the effort it would take trying to defend from the front bomber gun positions. still, if you're looking at new players consider this, how many new players would know that they must circle the field to allow all the drones to get off the field? the form up is time consuming and . that is not even mentioning the reprogramming of bomber formations to prevent them all from trying to take off at the same time like they do now. charging perks for each additional drone beyond the initial 3 gives players a choice based on need, as well as goals. they can choose to take as many as they have points to use. a lot fewer people would be doing the bomb n bail thing or going with the lancstuka maneuvers if there are perk points involved.
as for marketing, you're way over estimating the appeal. showing a p-51 vs a 109 or a corsair vs a ki-43 has more appeal than any number of bombers. maybe showing 109s and 190s attacking a 30 plane gaggle of bombers would strike someones "oh cool nerve". and there isn't anything more realistic about 24 planes in a bomber formation than there are 3 or 12.
there are people right now that go to the ew and mw arenas and do whatever they can get away with to earn perk points so they can use them in the main arena.
-
What reason would a b17 crew have for firing all guns in one direction while a second attacker comes in from another?
Ah...you're talking in relation to AH. Can the gunner switch to different planes in the formation or is it dependent on the pilot switching? If the gunner can switch planes himself, then it would be possible to track and engage two different targets. The gunner hops into one of the drones and then the pilot can man the guns in the bomber he's in.
ack-ack
-
wait are they really gunna put in a nuke???
-
Ah...you're talking in relation to AH. Can the gunner switch to different planes in the formation or is it dependent on the pilot switching? If the gunner can switch planes himself, then it would be possible to track and engage two different targets. The gunner hops into one of the drones and then the pilot can man the guns in the bomber he's in.
ack-ack
I was comparing a single player (pilot/gunner not pilot and a joiner) using the system as currently modeled to AI gunners that can fire at multiple attackers from multiple directions at the same time.
I never brought up the possibility of a joiner jumping from aircraft to aircraft if that's what you're asking. My suggestion concerned only AI gunning being implemented or retaining the current system. I don't believe minor changes to the current system is in the best interest of the game. AI gunners that increase the realistic scenario of defending against simultaneous attacks without the pilot being required to participate is.
-
AI gunners that increase the realistic scenario of defending against simultaneous attacks without the pilot being required to participate is.
actually, no it wouldn't but...you would love warbirds.
-
wait are they really gunna put in a nuke???
2 weeks...
-
you're just thinking of u.s. bomber formations that were developed during the strategic bombing initiative
...russians, germans, japanese and other countries thought differently
I know there were instances of small attacks by bombers. But 24 aircraft is not representative of the strategic bombing you are trying to compare this to. 24 is nothing. All sides conducted missions of this size regularly, especially the Jap, Ger, and others. They couldn't muster much more and wouldn't risk much less if they had a choice because it was too unsafe and unproductive to send them in smaller numbers.
safety and survivability is a matter of player learning and interaction...just giving them more drones won't increase their survivability.
Even without AI gunners it absolutely would.
Even 4 fighters (with good aim) attacking a formation could have a tough time finishing off 24 bombers before they run out of ammo OR got shot by the dozens of gunners The odds 24 bombers get shot down is nil, EXCEPT during the initial novelty of this new feature when the likelihood of hordes of fighters looking for formations to swarm on is highest. When the novelty wears off, furballers will likely still prefer dogfights.
With AI gunners, bomber survivability increases slightly with vet pilots, mostly due to situations where a vet is alone against multiple attackers. Survivability increases more with inexperienced players (relative to his survivability without AI) due to his lack of gunnery skills, SA, and multi tasking while on approach to target.
as for marketing, you're way over estimating the appeal. showing a p-51 vs a 109 or a corsair vs a ki-43 has more appeal than any number of bombers.
The word "showing" suggest you're looking at this from a television commercial viewers perspective. Look at it from a new or old players point of view. Imagine yourself flying a formation, look out the window or in f3 mode and look at the bombers. Which is more awe inspiring 3 planes or 24 in a typical ww2 formation like Fish posted?
Or from an attackers perspective. You're in a fighter and you come up on formations of 24. Still again, which is more incredible?
I would wager that the biggest, most glaringly noticeable dissimilarities between AH and the real war is a lack of large formations of bombers or nice coordinated formations of ANY aircraft for that matter. Everywhere you look you see poster children of the uncoordinated no matter how hard they try. At first sight, little in the game gives a strong sense of "being there."
Formations of 24 aren't the end all be all of ww2 sims, but they can create a huge first impression of an epic, coordinated air war.
and there isn't anything more realistic about 24 planes in a bomber formation than there are 3 or 12.
There is though. Those 4 plane missions you referred to earlier were often by smaller faster attack bombers, not the 17s and 24s. But the most typical mission size was way over 12 regardless of what type of aircraft you describe.
Plus, a 24 plane drone formation will always stay in better formation than a mission put on by 24 players who attempt to fly formation. As a result better mutual defensive fire. The look and the effect are more realistic than player coordinated missions.
how many new players would know that they must circle the field to allow all the drones to get off the field?
They'd learn the first time they did it. That learning curve is certainly easier than learning how to shoot well enough to defend three planes or be obliterated. There is only one bomber pilot I know of that is truly feared in the game due to his shooting ability and many players have played for a decade. You keep insisting on teaching them, but it won't ever happen, it's a factor you can't control. Adding drone formations is a factor we can control and it benefits all of us.
that is not even mentioning the reprogramming of bomber formations to prevent them all from trying to take off at the same time like they do now.
That is not difficult to program, all it takes is changing a couple numbers. And they don't exactly take off at the same time. I could care less if they changed that aspect or not but the pilot would still have to fly in a circle for form up even at the current rate drones follow.
a lot fewer people would be doing the bomb n bail thing or going with the lancstuka maneuvers if there are perk points involved.
Bomb and bail or lancstukas is off the subject a bit. I don't like seeing either personally but they are not hugely important to me. I consider lancstukas the gamier. Stopping them could be a matter of perk use, but I don't think that needs to include charging for each bomber. There are plenty of ways htc could stop this if they wanted to. Bombs could be prevented from releasing below XXXX feet AGL in high alt bombers. Bailing could be prevented for XX minutes after bomb release. It seems Htc doesn't care to stop it so it does no one any good discussing it.
there are people right now that go to the ew and mw arenas and do whatever they can get away with to earn perk points so they can use them in the main arena.
There is nothing you can do to change that until they change the perk system. If you state specifically how it affects this idea I might have an idea that would deter it otherwise I don't see how this has anything to do with bomber formations.
-
actually, no it wouldn't but...you would love warbirds.
Despite our past disagreements, I have no problem discussing this idea with you in a civil way and you have done the same here. But you keep debating things like this when I know you are smart enough to know better. How could you possibly believe that a pilot jumping from gun to gun firing at single targets is more realistic than AI gunners that can defend every side of your bomber at the same time as it was in WW2? Come on, seriously.
I've tried Warbirds, it has fallen way behind.
Now that I think about it, there is another way to implement my idea without using large drone formations. A command that slaves any bomber to a lead aircraft and keeps all players in nice formations that leaves one pilot to worry about navigation and everyone else to defense.
I think it would be a great compromise but it still wouldn't be as good as using drones. Drones are a population multiplier that increases action/activity for everyone. There is no question other than what programming or server challenges it presents and I see little of either without a huge increase in subscriptions.
-
2 weeks...
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Despite our past disagreements, I have no problem discussing this idea with you in a civil way and you have done the same here. But you keep debating things like this when I know you are smart enough to know better. How could you possibly believe that a pilot jumping from gun to gun firing at single targets is more realistic than AI gunners that can defend every side of your bomber at the same time as it was in WW2? Come on, seriously.
it is more realistic to have another person or persons gunning for the pilot. ai is too accurate and dummying them down defeats your ideas of realism and survivability. it's bad enough that a person can sit in a bomber now and have the guns from 3 bombers firing at the same point at the same time. you have played this game long enough to see the effects of ai guns, try to imagine how unbalancing it would be to have 24 plane formations with all guns manned by ai that is more accurate than a human. i've seen a group of players flying bombers with ai gunners and i can tell you 18 planes with ai gunners all firing at you with pinpoint accuracy is an exercise in futility and is enough to keep you from attacking such a formation more than once.
Now that I think about it, there is another way to implement my idea without using large drone formations. A command that slaves any bomber to a lead aircraft and keeps all players in nice formations that leaves one pilot to worry about navigation and everyone else to defense.
I think it would be a great compromise but it still wouldn't be as good as using drones. Drones are a population multiplier that increases action/activity for everyone. There is no question other than what programming or server challenges it presents and I see little of either without a huge increase in subscriptions.
ya an option that would allow multiple players ro slave their bomber formations together would be very cool. how to keep them slaved when planes start getting shot down would be a programming issue. and what about the pilots that lose their entire formation, auto join another players planes as a gunner?
i think you over estimate the attraction of drones, especially in the numbers you're suggesting. they may look cool but when it comes to game play it's a different story. you're substituting players trying to work together in a coordinated effort for a horde of drones controlled by a single individual. the large formations your suggesting would require larger numbers of interceptors and if people can't coordinate enough to fly bombers in formations what are the odds of getting a bunch of people together so they can fly to 20000 feet and intercept a couple of large bomber formations before they close a base down or sink a cv group? with a 24 plane formation and ai gunners, it's a losing proposition for the typical 1 or 2 people to attack them...it would be a losing proposition for 10 people unless they are damn good and flying perk planes. it wouldn't take very long before most players all but ignored them, pretty much like they do now for bombers flying 30000 feet over a base. at that point for the defenders it's see what the bombers hit then try to hold off the attackers long enough for everything to pop again.
i'm sorry but, i think you're missing one of the more important aspects, the players. there are few people with the know how and/or patience to circle a base for 5 or 10 minutes waiting for drones to clear the runway. their first response will be to just fly off and see how many drones can warp to their position and form up. on the other hand, if larger formations were offered in the hangar as an option, those with the patience and know how would choose them for a run or 2. and those that don't have the know how or patience would opt for the smaller formations. and rather than ai gunners, if more than 1 person were allowed to join as a gunner for larger formations, that would offer more flexibility for those that want to be gunners.
on a side note, bombers didn't fly in formation all at the same altitude in a nice level line...and that aspect would have to be programmed for authenticity.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/B-17_group_in_formation.jpg)
(http://www.b17bomber.de/images/details/formation_down.jpg)
(http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/60/6031/V9WB100Z/posters/formation-of-american-b-17flying-fortress-bombers-over-target-area-during-wwii-bombing-mission.jpg)
-
I don't have time for all these long posts so I'm going to stick to one subject at a time, accuracy for now.
ai is too accurate and dummying them down defeats your ideas of realism and survivability.
It doesn't defeat either of them. The survivability comes from the fact that there are 24 bombers and it's unlikely that all of them will be killed because if a single pilot is good enough to avoid getting shot, then he will run out of ammo.
The Realism comes from large formations and multi-sided defense for all players, not just guys who shoot like 999000.
you have played this game long enough to see the effects of ai guns, try to imagine how unbalancing it would be...
You forget why AI is as accurate as it is in game. They aren't modeled to match real life abilities, they are tweaked to provide a balance. If they didn't do it this way, then CVs would be useless targets destroyed by cartoon pilots that never would have lived long enough to achieve the skills they have in this game. Field and CV guns cannot be compared to 24 bomber crews.
more accurate than a human.
That is an extreme exaggeration and it doesn't have to be that way. AI is only as accurate as it is programmed to be.
i've seen a group of players flying bombers with ai gunners and i can tell you 18 planes with ai gunners all firing at you with pinpoint accuracy is an exercise in futility and is enough to keep you from attacking such a formation more than once.
Again you presume that AI gunners on these formations have to be modeled the same way puffy or field guns are. Besides the unrealistic and unjustified "pin point accuracy" you keep attaching to a completely different aspect of the game, you seem to be working from the assumption that any fighter pilot in AH should be able to destroy an entire formation of bombers with little risk of being hit. I don't. I think they should be lucky to kill 2 or 3 before their luck runs out. If there are only 3 in a formation, it's not much of a challenge.
What would you say the odds were of a single fighter diving into a formation of 17s or 24s and coming away without damage in ww2? I'm guessing the odds were pretty high against just as it should be in game.
-
field and cv ai guns as they exist now are more accurate than you're giving credit...get within the kill zone and you're getting pinged. the puffy ack isn't as accurate as the short range stuff, if you know how to fly in it. considering the number of guns on ships, that's about what you would see attacking a 24 plane formation of bombers with ai gunners. you never played warbirds did you? i did, same 3 plane box, same single pilot control...but ai gunners. the ai wasn't very accurate at 1000 yards, but get within 700 yards and it would shred you unless you were using some really good tactics and staying fast, even then you would get pinged on each pass. if they had dummied down the accuracy any further, the bombers would have been nothing more than cannon fodder.
with your large formation idea, in order to maintain balance, unless htc wanted to change things so that more than 1 person could join a formation as a gunner (maybe make each plane a gun position), then ai would be necessary. and in order for that ai to replace people, as well as keep those large formations from being little more than score padding cannon fodder, it would have to be at least as accurate as field and ship guns. and with that large of a formation and that amount of ai accuracy with so many guns, it would definitely take more than one attacker to make a dent. absolutely would make defending against strat runs interesting. just 2 people with those large formations could level a large airfield in a single pass. a group of 4 could level the strats in a single pass, can't imagine what a squad like the aks or pigs could do.
you're wanting 24 plane formations to be the default, and i'm saying it would not only make the learning curve for new players tougher, it would be cumbersome as well. it would also be unbalancing in general in the main arenas.
-
field and cv ai guns as they exist now are more accurate than you're giving credit
Not at all. I know very well how accurate they are. And if that is too accurate for you, all they have to do is reduce the accuracy for the large formations. That's exactly what I suspected in the first place.
After all, and I think this is what you are trying to get at and which I agree with, the player/pilot should bear much of the burden for surviving the flight by flying smart, not flying fearlessly into hordes because the AI gunners are so good. BUT, there has to be some balance. Flying into a formation like this should not be a walk in the park.
the ai wasn't very accurate at 1000 yards, but get within 700 yards and it would shred you unless you were using some really good tactics and staying fast
That's the way it should be. That's the way it is now with a good gunner. And don't forget, just because you are in range of one bomber doesn't mean all 24 of them are close enough to do any damage.
if they had dummied down the accuracy any further, the bombers would have been nothing more than cannon fodder.
I don't believe this. I'm sure they could have dropped it just a hair more without that much of a change. There are infinite numbers to adjust writing software codes.
in order for that ai to replace people, as well as keep those large formations from being little more than score padding cannon fodder, it would have to be at least as accurate as field and ship guns.
There is the bottom line right there. Is it REALLY so bad flying over fields now? If it were, then everyone would be screaming bloody murder on a regular basis. There is a balance with field guns the way they are. Dangerous enough to make you think twice and fly smart, yet forgiving enough that vultures get through on a regular basis. You hear more complaints about vultures than you do about field gun lethality. That is balance.
As far as score padding, there are other easy ways to inhibit that. It's not even an issue.
would make defending against strat runs interesting.
This is where other changes would come to play. Points for hitting strats may have to be given whether buildings are up or not. A new type of accumulative damage might be in order.
you're wanting 24 plane formations to be the default, and i'm saying it would not only make the learning curve for new players tougher, it would be cumbersome as well. it would also be unbalancing in general in the main arenas.
I never said that. Single bombers would still be available. Hell, I don't care if the 3 formation choice is still there also. It wouldn't make the learning curve harder. Just the fact that a newb is likely to MAKE IT to the target with something left to fly means he/she is more likely to be successful in the game before they give up and quit.
-
Not at all. I know very well how accurate they are. And if that is too accurate for you, all they have to do is reduce the accuracy for the large formations. That's exactly what I suspected in the first place.
After all, and I think this is what you are trying to get at and which I agree with, the player/pilot should bear much of the burden for surviving the flight by flying smart, not flying fearlessly into hordes because the AI gunners are so good. BUT, there has to be some balance. Flying into a formation like this should not be a walk in the park.
That's the way it should be. That's the way it is now with a good gunner. And don't forget, just because you are in range of one bomber doesn't mean all 24 of them are close enough to do any damage.
I don't believe this. I'm sure they could have dropped it just a hair more without that much of a change. There are infinite numbers to adjust writing software codes.
the way the auto guns are programmed, reducing the accuracy would make them all but useless except for very close, which in turn would make the bombers just as easy to shoot down as the 3 plane formations in ah. if i understand the coding properly it's based on object proximity detection. the system detects and enemy aircraft approaching and the auto guns start tracking it. once it gets to within x distance, the guns start firing in bursts until the target flies out of range and/or is shot down. trying to get too granular with the code by artificially mimicking human error is not practical. not to mention, lowering the accuracy defeats your idea of bomber survivability.
i can only think of 2 places within the current 3 plane bomber formations where only 1 gun can fire at you...and you have to be very close to the bomber. turning the 3 plane formation into a 24 plane formation of 8 boxes in the standard usaaf flying formation, there isn't any place you can get within that formation where at least 4 guns aren't firing at you.
There is the bottom line right there. Is it REALLY so bad flying over fields now? If it were, then everyone would be screaming bloody murder on a regular basis. There is a balance with field guns the way they are. Dangerous enough to make you think twice and fly smart, yet forgiving enough that vultures get through on a regular basis. You hear more complaints about vultures than you do about field gun lethality. That is balance.
people do complain about the field ack...a lot. they don't like getting dragged through it trying to shoot someone down, unless it's their own. a lot of times you can fly through it relatively uscathed by getting low to the ground until you're clear, but taking on 24 bombers with auto guns, you don't have many options. let's not forget, there aren't as many guns on a base as there will be with a 24 plane formation. it would be akin to trying to fly into and through a cv group, it can be done but not without at least losing parts.
This is where other changes would come to play. Points for hitting strats may have to be given whether buildings are up or not. A new type of accumulative damage might be in order.
i can see a lot of consequential problems with that line of thinking. to iron it out would require a "what if" checklist.
I never said that. Single bombers would still be available. Hell, I don't care if the 3 formation choice is still there also. It wouldn't make the learning curve harder. Just the fact that a newb is likely to MAKE IT to the target with something left to fly means he/she is more likely to be successful in the game before they give up and quit.
ok, i'm curious as to how you would prevent just any johhny joystick from taking 24 planes every single time he upped bombers. and, maybe getting some of his mishun oriented horder buddies to grab their own 24 plane sets and leveling at least 1 airfield with the town in a single pass, while a couple more buddies fly drunks in. people think bases get rolled with hordes now, having big formations available to even noobs, adds more problems.
i'm saying keep the 3 plane formation as default and charge perk points for each additional 3 plane box they add to their flying flotilla. whether the ords are perked or not wouldn't make a difference.
how people get treated within the arenas and what aspect they find that makes it interesting to them has more to do with whether they stick around or quit than the number of times they get shot down. i'm not much of a bomber jockey, but i've flown a decent amount of bombing runs. and i've had 2 hour flying sessions prematurely ended before i could drop my ords by single fighters just hanging around at 25-30k looking for someone to shoot at. i just up more bombers and plan a different route, as do the more dedicated bomber jockeys.
-
the way the auto guns are programmed, reducing the accuracy would make them all but useless
You are imposing inaccurate and wide performance gaps on a digital world where there is an infinite range of adjustments. They would not be useless.
which in turn would make the bombers just as easy to shoot down as the 3 plane formations in ah.
Again, I don't want INVINCIBLE bombers. That's not realistic or healthy for the game.
lowering the accuracy defeats your idea of bomber survivability.
You're misunderstanding my expectations and misunderstanding the ability of programmers to fine tune the accuracy of the AI gunners. I don't want or expect every bomber to survive. They will survive based on the number of attackers and the intelligence/skill/tactics of the bomber pilot. If one formation of bombers gets attacked by 5 or 6 decent fighter pilots, then the bomber formation might be wiped out.
there isn't any place you can get within that formation where at least 4 guns aren't firing at you.
As it was in RL and as it should be in game.
people do complain about the field ack...a lot.
As it was in RL and as it should be in game. Are you suggesting now that field guns are too strong and we should make it easier to vultch fields? Field guns are well balanced now just like bomber formations could be.
i can see a lot of consequential problems with that line of thinking. to iron it out would require a "what if" checklist.
Absolutely. Give me a what if and we can see if there is a compromise.
ok, i'm curious as to how you would prevent just any johhny joystick from taking 24 planes every single time he upped bombers.
I'm not sure I would want to. The only reason to is if other changes to the game are off the board OR they can't be implemented right away.
IF you must prevent them from overwhelming the game at first, they could be perked in some way, but not per bomber as you suggested, but for the entire formation. Or they could be enabled by schedule once every hour and a half or two hours during a 15 or 20 minute window. But this should be a temporary measure until proper game changes discourage gamey behavior.
You should ask better questions.
What incentives could you give bomber pilots to avoid carpet bombing bases and towns?
High alt puffy ack
More strat targets with better rewards for hitting them.
Changing game rules so that it encourages strat bombing over base bombing.
Different methods of tracking bombers so that they are easily intercepted (as it was in RL)
etc, etc
how people get treated within the arenas and what aspect they find that makes it interesting to them has more to do with whether they stick around or quit than the number of times they get shot down.
This is all debatable but it's certainly more interesting being in command of a 24 plane formation or attacking it than a 3 plane formation.
I see your points. I understand the things you want to avoid and I agree with some of them. What I don't agree with is how to do it. I don't think saying "no, because someone might not behave" is rational.
Game rules encourage and discourage behaviors to create challenges. Find the right rules and incentives and you will create the circumstances that give you the game you want. Blaming players for doing what they want to do when there is nothing in the rules or game structure that discourages it is ridiculous. Change the game. Don't reject good ideas because of bad behavior.
-
IF you must prevent them from overwhelming the game at first, they could be perked in some way, but not per bomber as you suggested, but for the entire formation. Or they could be enabled by schedule once every hour and a half or two hours during a 15 or 20 minute window. But this should be a temporary measure until proper game changes discourage gamey behavior.
Game rules encourage and discourage behaviors to create challenges. Find the right rules and incentives and you will create the circumstances that give you the game you want. Blaming players for doing what they want to do when there is nothing in the rules or game structure that discourages it is ridiculous. Change the game. Don't reject good ideas because of bad behavior.
sorry man, i'm more pessimistic when it comes to human behavior, especially in the virtual world of games. if there is a loophole, it will be exploited. would large formations be nice? sure, but not for free so that a group of 3 or 4 guys can level a base with a single pass and have it captured before anyone can say "alert". if the perk costs were per 3 plane box, and the bomb dispersal throughout the formation changed to be more of a carpet effect rather than everything hits within a 50 yard radius, that would keep most of the headaches down. then all you have to do is address the 2000ft b24lancstuka dive bombers from carpet bombing a tank fight...
You are imposing inaccurate and wide performance gaps on a digital world where there is an infinite range of adjustments. They would not be useless.
Again, I don't want INVINCIBLE bombers. That's not realistic or healthy for the game.
You're misunderstanding my expectations and misunderstanding the ability of programmers to fine tune the accuracy of the AI gunners. I don't want or expect every bomber to survive. They will survive based on the number of attackers and the intelligence/skill/tactics of the bomber pilot. If one formation of bombers gets attacked by 5 or 6 decent fighter pilots, then the bomber formation might be wiped out.
adjustments aren't as flexibile as you think, the ai cannot be effectively programmed with a little code to mimic human error. they have to use object proximity detection and tracking. as i stated in my previous example, the ai guns were not very effective at 1000 yards (not including the occasional golden bb) but, get within 600 yards and they were deadly. it was a decent balance that made the bombers just challenging enough to keep people interested in not only attacking bomber formations, but also flying bombers. that is as accurate as should be expected, going below that level of accuracy would make them all but useless because fighter guns can be effective further out.
As it was in RL and as it should be in game. Are you suggesting now that field guns are too strong and we should make it easier to vultch fields? Field guns are well balanced now just like bomber formations could be.
no, i'm not. my reply was directed to your assertion that few people complain about field ack. personally in some instances i think field ack should be a lot more effective.
Absolutely. Give me a what if and we can see if there is a compromise.
what would be the plan to prevent a group from rolling undefended bases in less time than it takes to kill a cv...every single day. keep in mind what it takes for a chess piece to win the war.
what is to stop a squad from making strat runs part of their squad night and leveling strats and hq in 1 run? with 96 bombers, it could be done fairly easily, and hardening the objects to make them tougher to drop is not an answer.
what's to stop every johnny joystick from upping 24 plane formations over tank fights, the way people do now with 3 plane formations? there is enough whining about the lack of tank fights now, ruin the fun with a bunch of 24 plane lancstukas and see what happens.
it's not that difficult to kill a cv with a level bomber, how much more effective would a 24 plane formation be, even without the accuracy the existing 3 plane formation has...
my answer to all would be perk costs...the more 3 plane boxes you choose to take up, the more each box costs.
You should ask better questions.
What incentives could you give bomber pilots to avoid carpet bombing bases and towns?
High alt puffy ack
More strat targets with better rewards for hitting them.
Changing game rules so that it encourages strat bombing over base bombing.
Different methods of tracking bombers so that they are easily intercepted (as it was in RL)
etc, etc
we already know puffy ack is less effective on bombers than it is on fighters. and increasing the effectiveness would be counter productive to increasing the size of bomber formations.
changing the strat value would definitely be a good thing, even without the bigger formations.
the object in the main arenas is to win the war, and you do that by taking bases, strats play a lesser role as they should. making bases less of a factor will do nothing but bring frustration to the masses. as per your wish, making the bombers more survivable with larger formations and ai gunners, along with increasing the value of the strats, will be as much encouragement as needed. there aren't many toon bomber pile-its that have the patience for a 2.5 hour 30k foot bomb run.
tracking bombers is easy now, making it easier would be counter productive.
-
Though I'm pretty much in agreement with Gyrene, I gotta say I appreciate both the civility
and logical point vs counter-point in this discussion. Thanks, guys. :)
-
Great thinking points guys...
I like the idea of large bomber formations. It's always been more fun for a noob player such as myself to be amidst a group of buffs as I felt safer and I had help from other players.
I'm not certain on which approach is better for the game. Increasing single formation numbers, or that ability to group buffs 3-4 players into a single flying formation using dot commands to latch to a lead player. As fun as it would to see the 24 bufffs in my own formation, defending it myself would be difficult and allowing others (gunner/observers/ OR A.I.) to defend me would make the attacking very difficult. As with any game, balance must be striven for.
:rock Great Discussion!
-
Great thinking points guys...
I like the idea of large bomber formations. <snip>.... using dot commands to latch to a lead player.
Wouldn't it be even more realistic if instead of a dot command the other players had to physically
maintain formation on the lead then drop their bombs when a verbal command to 'drop' was given?
-
Wouldn't it be even more realistic if instead of a dot command the other players had to physically
maintain formation on the lead then drop their bombs when a verbal command to 'drop' was given?
It would. I agree. I would love to get in with some guys and attempt this, but I rarely find them. Perhaps I am not in an active enough squad etc. but I like the idea of large buff formations.
I am uncertain as to what the best way to achieve that is. Do i just wait patiently for others of like mind to create a mission?
Think about the latching command, wouldn't this be a relatively easy way to "form up" with others who may not have upped from the same base as you... I am beat up with both drones gone, but there's another set of friendly buffs which I can "latch to" for safety on the return trip home.... Those buffs not going home? "un-latch" when clear of danger area.... Lead pilot is just that, a pilot and lead bomber.
I'm not really sure Arlo, just really like the idea's being thrown around here.
-
I'm not really sure Arlo, just really like the idea's being thrown around here.
I understand. I am, too. I'm willing to mull it over. But, currently, I'm of the mind that this isn't
all that different from a one-person mega-drone formation. It's just being formed up by more
than one person, initially. Technically speaking, once it's formed, couldn't the other player(s) turn
on a movie to watch or go make a beer run ... and still enjoy the protection of the player(s) still
actively in the game?
-
I understand. I am, too. I'm willing to mull it over. But, currently, I'm of the mind that this isn't
all that different from a one-person mega-drone formation. It's just being formed up by more
than one person, initially. Technically speaking, once it's formed, couldn't the other player(s) turn
on a movie to watch or go make a beer run ... and still enjoy the protection of the player(s) still
actively in the game?
That's where the balance would come in, it couldn't be so "easy" that people are walking away from their computers... I go afk when climbing out in buffs (go for a smoke, take the animal for a squirt, grab food, etc), as Im' sure others do too... In this case though, we wouldn't want a squad leader taking his squad of B-29's all the way to target only, to "text/call" his buddies to become "active".... In that situation though, i'm assuming no AI gunnery... So the overall formation is only as strong as it's number of active pilot's/gunners... I'm assuming 1 additional gunner observer rule still applies.
Latching command only works when within 200-400, and Auto-pilot will match lead formations moves so long as the attached formation is capable (think weight, missing parts, etc.... So i suppose it's double sided, if you're willing to latch to someone and go afk... You'd better not get upset at your lead formation for not "protecting you" when you come back to a tower screen.... Arlo, waddya think? :cheers:
-
That's where the balance would come in, it couldn't be so "easy" that people are walking away from their computers... I go afk when climbing out in buffs (go for a smoke, take the animal for a squirt, grab food, etc), as Im' sure others do too... In this case though, we wouldn't want a squad leader taking his squad of B-29's all the way to target only, to "text/call" his buddies to become "active".... In that situation though, i'm assuming no AI gunnery... So the overall formation is only as strong as it's number of active pilot's/gunners... I'm assuming 1 additional gunner observer rule still applies.
Latching command only works when within 200-400, and Auto-pilot will match lead formations moves so long as the attached formation is capable (think weight, missing parts, etc.... So i suppose it's double sided, if you're willing to latch to someone and go afk... You'd better not get upset at your lead formation for not "protecting you" when you come back to a tower screen.... Arlo, waddya think? :cheers:
Well, I dunno. I'm one of those silly players that take pride in my ability to fly in formation, whether it be fighters or buffs. But a strat run is long as hades and probably should be an aluminum overcast type of mission. And I've reached the age of frequent runs to the head. Formation for flight purposes only? Why not. But each formation player still drops their own bombs (whether through calibrated drop of lead bombardier call).
Additionally .... what if the lead pilot needs to go urinate or something? Switching who has lead may be called for. :D
-
Well, I dunno. I'm one of those silly players that take pride in my ability to fly in formation, whether it be fighters or buffs. But a strat run is long as hades and probably should be an aluminum overcast type of mission. And I've reached the age of frequent runs to the head. Formation for flight purposes only? Why not. But each formation player still drops their own bombs (whether through calibrated drop of lead bombardier call).
Additionally .... what if the lead pilot needs to go urinate or something? Switching who has lead may be called for. :D
I'm with ya! (on the formation flying challenge and it's feel good rewards, not the frequent urinating thing... :old: ) As well as the lead bombadier not having control over the rest of the buffs in formation...
I want to stay away from the 24 plane formation being controlled by a single player, but rather make it easier for grouped buffs to stick together to target, and after. We've all seen the nice formation over target dissipate after bombs dropped because each pilot egresses a different way.
For me a buff mission is nice and slack on takeoff, even more boring climbing out to target alt, bland setting nose on target, then it's a disgusting flurry of activity for the 2min leading up to bomb drop, and even worse right after. If I don't have to worry about what each crew member is doing simultaneously at bomb drop, I think it'd be a more enjoyable activity overall.
At any rate, i think the simple dot command to maintain formation with another player is not a bad thing... Certainly doesn't mean you can't fly in formation actively, just gives you the option to turn it over to your pilot when you're not representing him (in gunner of bomber seat). The coding would have to be very loose so that if conditions exist where your formation cannot maintain a set distance from lead buff, the "tether" is effectively broken and a message to player is presented: Formation Broken: Auto-Pilot engaged.
-
At any rate, i think the simple dot command to maintain formation with another player is not a bad thing... Certainly doesn't mean you can't fly in formation actively, just gives you the option to turn it over to your pilot when you're not representing him (in gunner of bomber seat). The coding would have to be very loose so that if conditions exist where your formation cannot maintain a set distance from lead buff, the "tether" is effectively broken and a message to player is presented: Formation Broken: Auto-Pilot engaged.
Ok, I'm with you on this.
-
you do realize if formations are increased in number the amount of ords needed to drop any object is going to increase as well...just like asking for the ability to carry more troops.
nice concept...might happen when the nuke is introduced.
It would fix the pony bomb truck problem
-
Wouldn't it be even more realistic if instead of a dot command the other players had to physically
maintain formation on the lead then drop their bombs when a verbal command to 'drop' was given?
No, because in real life, the pilot didn't jump from gun to gun to bombardier position to...
There are too many chores for one person.
If we had AI gunners, then I might say make them fly in formation.
But then I want a more realistic experience and perhaps a new challenge and I wont get that if I wait for the dweeblets in this game to learn how to fly a decent bomber formation.
I would never get to attack a large, tight formation of bombers and most bomber pilots will rarely if ever experience being part of one. I have yet to even see a well coordinated formation of bombers in this game. Maybe one or two formations will stay close while stragglers are scattered all around.
It's an experience worth modeling in the game because it is the epitome of the air war in WW2. It's an image almost everyone in the world could tell you about the war regardless of how uneducated or aeronautically challenged they are. You could go to the deepest jungles of Africa and ask a shirtless tribal woman with a lip hanging down to her nipples what she knows about ww2 and she'd recite the daylight bombing strategy. :D
-
Perhaps a very crude (on purpose) autopilot for multiple formations so that when it does come time to jump to the guns the bombers don't all break formation from one another?
-
sorry man, i'm more pessimistic when it comes to human behavior,
Understandable, I agree with the need to prevent retarded, gamey behavior, but the way to do it is to create the things you want and address the downsides as they come up if you haven't already fixed them from the get go.
and the bomb dispersal throughout the formation changed to be more of a carpet effect rather than everything hits within a 50 yard radius,
Not sure what you are talking about here. I've flown low level formations and seen bomb drops hit relative to the plane they came from in a carpet affect. I always thought the hits looked closer from high alt because of the distance. I could be wrong.
then all you have to do is address the 2000ft b24lancstuka dive bombers from carpet bombing a tank fight...
Done. Bombs don't release below 10 - 15k AGL. Heavy bombers were primarily high alt attackers, no reason they should be allowed to do otherwise here. The only exceptions could be with single bombers/no formations.
adjustments aren't as flexibile as you think,
I still don't believe this, but even if you are right, I think the field guns are just about as perfectly balanced as you can get and if that is what AI guns on bombers would turn out to be, I'm all for it. Besides you might not have considered that bombers are firing much smaller rounds than field guns when you suggested that the same accuracy from AI gunners on 24 bombers would be too much.
what would be the plan to prevent a group from rolling undefended bases
This could be a variety of things. Like I said before I would prefer seeing some serious changes to the game which would include doing away with blowing up buildings to shut down a field or capture a town.
One way might seem odd but making large formations ineffective on bases and towns. Bombs would hit, but no damage to the structures.
Take away all points for these targets. Increase points for strats. Develop more strats that provide a way for bombers to contribute to the war since you are taking away the only significant contribution they can make.
what is to stop a squad from making strat runs part of their squad night and leveling strats and hq in 1 run? with 96 bombers, it could be done fairly easily, and hardening the objects to make them tougher to drop is not an answer.
I don't understand why hardening objects is off the table, but as I said, I don't care for the 'blow buildings up for effect' aspect of the game. I would suggest making the city 'grounds' the object. Bombers would have to repeatedly hit the city. Every hit results in points for the pilot and decreases the pre-determined value of the strat to affect the war. This would simulate a demoralizing effect on the population and the handicapping of infrastructure and productivity.
Take away the incentives. Create better incentives. Make rail yards that affect base supply. Add industrial targets like we had in AW. The possibilities are there.
what's to stop every johnny joystick from upping 24 plane formations over tank fights,
10 - 15k AGL drop restriction. That and any single hit of a friendly GV should result in complete destruction of the formation via kill-shooter. This could be because bombing enemy GVs could be considered a valid tactic but not if it's done in a careless gamey way.
I completely agree this is a gamey act and I'm all for penalties for players that do it. Perhaps a form of punishment can be instituted that prevents offending pilots from flying bombers for 2 weeks. Anything that discourages gamey behavior. But I believe Htc doesn't really care and aren't interested in preventing these kinds of things or they would have done something about it a long time ago.
it's not that difficult to kill a cv with a level bomber, how much more effective would a 24 plane formation be, even without the accuracy the existing 3 plane formation has...
Make them ineffective on ships. I don't think it was too common to use large formations to carpet bomb ships, so I don't think it should be allowed here. Even for 3 bombers.
my answer to all would be perk costs...the more 3 plane boxes you choose to take up, the more each box costs.
The perk system has been good at its job to now, but I don't believe in it all that much. I think there are better ways.
If people spend all their perks adding a set or two of bombers then how often would we actually see what I propose? I want to see the full formations. I wan't to see extra targets during off peak hours and I want to see a new aspect of the game. I don't want this to be a rare occasion. It should be a regular part of the war and if you give it a reason to exist and remove the incentives to use them in the gamey ways, it wont cause the problems you see. I grant you that there will likely be unforeseen consequences, but we should either figure out what they are now or deal with them as they come up?
we already know puffy ack is less effective on bombers than it is on fighters. and increasing the effectiveness would be counter productive to increasing the size of bomber formations.
Again, I don't expect every bomber to come home. There should be risk and losses at every target. I don't know what the average losses of bombers were due to flack alone. If the average was 10% then I think that might be pretty close to what would happen if 24 flew through puffy we have now. 2 or 3 lost drones would be about 10%.
strats play a lesser role as they should.
I don't agree. I think that considering the historical use of bombers, air bases and towns as primary targets for bombers is gamey. It was a simple basic war format that worked great for old PC computing power and hard drive space, but is way out dated and under developed for current technology. I think the strats should be more complex and have more affect on the war.
making bases less of a factor will do nothing but bring frustration to the masses.
Why? If you take away the best way for bomber pilots to contribute to the game, then yes they will be frustrated. Create better incentives and contributions then I believe they will enjoy the game more.
there aren't many toon bomber pile-its that have the patience for a 2.5 hour 30k foot bomb run.
I agree, which is why the strat system needs changed. One city deep in enemy territory should not be the only target they have available to them.
tracking bombers is easy now, making it easier would be counter productive.
Yes and no. It's hard to say exactly how this idea will play out. But as it was in RL, the enemy always had time to mount a defense. They knew the bombers were on the way because of spotters or radar.
At first buff hunters will go on feeding frenzy. Some of that will wear off. How much warning and information should be given would have to be adjusted accordingly.
-
Muzik, i fear that the basis of your idea is entrenched in the strategies of the 8th af strategic bombing of europe. and that you wish to extend that ideology to the limited world in aces high. it wasn't that way in every theater of ops, especially with countries other than the u.s. and britain.
if it were up to me, large formations would be doable...but not without cost. i would use an incremental perk cost system, the more 3 plane boxes you choose in the hangar, the higher the cost of each subsequent box. say, b17g's...default 3 plane box, no cost. add a 3 plane box at a cost of 50 bomber perks, add another for a cost of 100 bomber perks, and so on until you reach the maximum of 8 sets. that would allow much flexibility to people who wish to make bombing runs. on the down side, it could cause more people to look for ways to farm perk points for bombers.
Not sure what you are talking about here. I've flown low level formations and seen bomb drops hit relative to the plane they came from in a carpet affect. I always thought the hits looked closer from high alt because of the distance. I could be wrong.
there is no actual bomb dispersal pattern as there would be in reality. if you set salvo to 1, and make a drop from say 2000 feet, the bombs from all 3 planes land within something like 150 feet of each other. go to 10,000 feet and the bombs will hit hit closer to each other, rinse, repeat up to 30,000 feet and you can watch the bombs hit within the circle of a field gun emplacement, where they should be farther apart. i know why it's done the way it is and i have no problem with it. however, if the same metrics were to be applied to 24 plane formations, you could have 8 bombs landing within the space of a vehicle hangar from 20,000 feet up when the impact zone should be the size of at least a bomber hangar. i can think of a few ways to prevent that from being the case but, i'm one of the people who would like the flexibility to change the shape of the formations.
Done. Bombs don't release below 10 - 15k AGL. Heavy bombers were primarily high alt attackers, no reason they should be allowed to do otherwise here. The only exceptions could be with single bombers/no formations.
10 - 15k AGL drop restriction. That and any single hit of a friendly GV should result in complete destruction of the formation via kill-shooter. This could be because bombing enemy GVs could be considered a valid tactic but not if it's done in a careless gamey way.
those would be a preposterous ways to stop low level carpet bombing. if the drop pattern was changed from its current state, it wouldn't be possible to get all those bombs into a small area. i'm pretty sure low level carpet bombing would only be a problem until people ran out of perks. for fighters, it's a target rich opportunity to get some kills. for tankers who would be the victims of low level carpet bombing, simple fix, don't spawn camp and keep moving.
I still don't believe this, but even if you are right, I think the field guns are just about as perfectly balanced as you can get and if that is what AI guns on bombers would turn out to be, I'm all for it. Besides you might not have considered that bombers are firing much smaller rounds than field guns when you suggested that the same accuracy from AI gunners on 24 bombers would be too much.
i don't have a problem with the field guns or the ship guns...they are what they are. if they were any easier to get through they may as well change the name of the game to mario brothers. if auto guns were introduced to bombers, then having their accuracy increase based on proximity would be the way to go. that is just about the closest you can get to human factor without some elaborate programming.
-
This could be a variety of things. Like I said before I would prefer seeing some serious changes to the game which would include doing away with blowing up buildings to shut down a field or capture a town.
One way might seem odd but making large formations ineffective on bases and towns. Bombs would hit, but no damage to the structures.
Take away all points for these targets. Increase points for strats. Develop more strats that provide a way for bombers to contribute to the war since you are taking away the only significant contribution they can make.
I don't understand why hardening objects is off the table, but as I said, I don't care for the 'blow buildings up for effect' aspect of the game. I would suggest making the city 'grounds' the object. Bombers would have to repeatedly hit the city. Every hit results in points for the pilot and decreases the pre-determined value of the strat to affect the war. This would simulate a demoralizing effect on the population and the handicapping of infrastructure and productivity.
Take away the incentives. Create better incentives. Make rail yards that affect base supply. Add industrial targets like we had in AW. The possibilities are there.
why would you even consider removing the primary reasons for combat in the game and turn it into something like a glorified bomber command game? if shutting down bases were removed what is there to promote fighting? it's the base captures that keep the fight going. granted it's also the cause of many things people complain about but without them being a factor, it's nothing but horde furball city. hardening the objects would eliminate the ability to use many of the fighters, and why would we want to do that? without removing the importance of air bases (since this is an air combat simulator) in the grand scheme of winning the war, maybe, just maybe eliminating ground vehicle bases and making the towns where gv's are based, then incorporating a more intricate supply system involving the towns and the strats, and expanding the strat system to have more of an impact on the war effort with multiple city/depots rather what exists now. consider if every chess piece country had 4 or 5 major cities that could be targeted, as well as strategic supply lines and supply depots that could be targeted, how much more of a bombing campaign would that create without removing the front line war aspects that exist now?
while you're mulling over ideas on how to "improve" things, please do not overlook what is part and parcel of the appeal of aces high, the variety of action available to those who choose to explore it. turning it into all strategic bomber command where the only way to win the war is through massive bombing attacks and attrition will produce a graveyard of activity.
I completely agree this is a gamey act and I'm all for penalties for players that do it. Perhaps a form of punishment can be instituted that prevents offending pilots from flying bombers for 2 weeks. Anything that discourages gamey behavior. But I believe Htc doesn't really care and aren't interested in preventing these kinds of things or they would have done something about it a long time ago.
that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. that sort of a punishment can result in the loss of paying customers very easily. there are better ways but, if changes in other aspects were made to keep such behavior from being effective, then the occurrences will decrease.
The perk system has been good at its job to now, but I don't believe in it all that much. I think there are better ways.
i'm curious...but that's for another discussion.
If people spend all their perks adding a set or two of bombers then how often would we actually see what I propose? I want to see the full formations. I wan't to see extra targets during off peak hours and I want to see a new aspect of the game. I don't want this to be a rare occasion. It should be a regular part of the war and if you give it a reason to exist and remove the incentives to use them in the gamey ways, it wont cause the problems you see. I grant you that there will likely be unforeseen consequences, but we should either figure out what they are now or deal with them as they come up?
bombers are just one of many aspects of the game. the penalties you suggest are not for the video game world. if you really want to see full formations, get a bomber squad together and run missions, that is the only 100% way to get what you personally want 100% of the time. people are always building up their bomber perks, so i seriously doubt there would be a shortage of 24 plane formations even after the gamey retards burn theirs up with their antics. for every 5000 foot lancstuka run there are 5 or 6 making 15,000+ foot bombing runs that are successful.
I don't agree. I think that considering the historical use of bombers, air bases and towns as primary targets for bombers is gamey. It was a simple basic war format that worked great for old PC computing power and hard drive space, but is way out dated and under developed for current technology. I think the strats should be more complex and have more affect on the war.
Why? If you take away the best way for bomber pilots to contribute to the game, then yes they will be frustrated. Create better incentives and contributions then I believe they will enjoy the game more.
i'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this but, you're wrong. the same principles are still incorporated outside of aces high. there is an overall objective, win the war. there are tasks to be completed in order to win the war, destroy something or take it over for your use. if this were an mmo first person shooter, there would be something else to destroy and or take over. battle lines would be defined and fluctuating based on the success/failure of meeting the objectives. in aces high where there are 3 sides, the air bases are the front lines, and possessing them determines who wins the war. the importance of strats should be nothing more than preventing the enemy from being able to wage war against you effectively or at all. destroy an ack factory and the ack gun supply line becomes ineffective. with the factory and supply line down, any ack guns that are destroyed on a base cannot be respawned until the factory is back on line. same principle for all other objects. but if the strats were expanded to include building materials, bombs, vehicles etc...then there are the incentives for bombing raids on strats.
-
Muzik, i fear that the basis of your idea is entrenched in the strategies of the 8th af strategic bombing of europe. and that you wish to extend that ideology to the limited world in aces high. it wasn't that way in every theater of ops, especially with countries other than the u.s. and britain.
You are right, it is the basis, but it doesn't matter what theaters it wasn't in, half the things we have in game were limited to one theater or another. Most glaring being Pacific theater combatants fighting ETO combatants. I'm not trying to suggest an exact duplicate of the air war in Europe, just a more epic experience.
i would use an incremental perk cost system...
...on the down side, it could cause more people to look for ways to farm perk points for bombers.
Safe to say we wont agree on this. But why do you propose continuing to support a system that people abuse as you say? I think there are better ways. Plus as I said before, your method potentially reduces the bomber formations to the likes of me163s or B29s (because I've heard they've become a bit rare).
I don't want them to be a rare instance in the game. As I said before they have to potential to be a population modifier that improves the game play during non peak hours. In addition bomber pilots seemingly take a back seat to fighter pilots already, when they are an important aspect of the game. There should be more value placed on their participation which means giving them a richer experience and by extension fighter pilots as well.
there is no actual bomb dispersal pattern as there would be in reality.
I'll take your word for it. So then you are correct, bomb dispersal should be modeled.
those would be a preposterous ways to stop low level carpet bombing.
I don't agree. Heavy bombers forte was not low level bombing. Smaller faster bombers were more likely to perform those missions but this sacrificed payload. I see no reason heavies should be used in this gamey way but if the rest of the population is cool with it, then so am I.
if the drop pattern was changed from its current state, it wouldn't be possible to get all those bombs into a small area. i'm pretty sure low level carpet bombing would only be a problem until people ran out of perks. for fighters, it's a target rich opportunity to get some kills. for tankers who would be the victims of low level carpet bombing, simple fix, don't spawn camp and keep moving.
That's great, except for the perk cost part. If everyone is cool with large formations making low level scorched earth passes, then I'm cool with it too. I don't GV that much anyhow.
why would you even consider removing the primary reasons for combat in the game and turn it into something like a glorified bomber command game?
You misunderstand, I don't suggest ending base taking or combat in towns and especially anything that reduced the ground war. The comment was an "if the game could be changed" then find different ways to facilitate base capture. I have ideas, but I don't want to get sidetracked. All I'm saying is give bombers more incentive to do other things than wipe out bases or towns.
that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. that sort of a punishment can result in the loss of paying customers very easily. there are better ways but, if changes in other aspects were made to keep such behavior from being effective, then the occurrences will decrease.
You're right. I wasn't suggesting that I had the perfect solution, it was just a thought. Punishments can be used. Muting!!! The amount of time you can keep the kid in his room is the deciding factor. But as you said, make the right changes and occurrences will decrease.
hardening the objects would eliminate the ability to use many of the fighters
Which is why I suggested making the grounds the target, not the buildings. But that doesn't mean that buildings can't be made a little harder. It was just one possible option which could be used in conjunction with other measures affect the same change.
maybe, just maybe eliminating ground vehicle bases and making the towns where gv's are based, then incorporating a more intricate supply system involving the towns and the strats, and expanding the strat system to have more of an impact on the war effort with multiple city/depots rather what exists now. consider if every chess piece country had 4 or 5 major cities that could be targeted, as well as strategic supply lines and supply depots that could be targeted, how much more of a bombing campaign would that create without removing the front line war aspects that exist now?
I see you're starting to picture the kinds of modifications I envision. That's great, but I'm sure you'll agree that all of these changes couldn't be made simultaneously. If formations were introduced, we would have to accept some down falls until development progresses.
if you really want to see full formations, get a bomber squad together and run missions, that is the only 100% way to get what you personally want 100% of the time.
I don't fly bombers and even if I did, I still wouldn't see what I am suggesting here. It's easier to stay in formation in real life than in a sim, you have no peripheral vision. So I don't blame anyone, it's just an unrealistic expectation for a pilot who doesn't just have a single job of flying his aircraft.
i seriously doubt there would be a shortage of 24 plane formations even after the gamey retards burn theirs up with their antics. for every 5000 foot lancstuka run there are 5 or 6 making 15,000+ foot bombing runs that are successful.
Well that's good to know. Then we don't need to make a lot of concessions or changes.
i'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this but, you're wrong. the same principles are still incorporated outside of aces high.
About what? bombing civilian populations? No. It was done, but it wasn't a strategic target, it was for psychological effect with a lot of revenge thrown in. If you want to allow it in game, then allow the towns to be hit repeatedly with full points for hits and as a representation of demoralization efforts. That is a valid target for bomber pilots, but it conflicts with the current method of capturing bases, hence my suggestion to change the base capture protocols.
Taking airfields? It's still done, but when trying to take an airfield to use, you don't destroy all of it's facilities. And in WW2, bases were carpet bombed on occasion. It wasn't rare but it wasn't the ideal tactic so it was avoided depending on the circumstances. Anyhow, my point was that blowing up buildings is a poor representation of strategic combat and it should be changed a bit.
if the strats were expanded to include building materials, bombs, vehicles etc...then there are the incentives for bombing raids on strats.
I like it. :aok
-
you're really over estimating the appeal that large bomber formations would have on prospective players much less the existing players, as much as saying people come in looking to use tanks. i'm willing to bet good money that +/- 1 percent were looking at the bombers when they got here, the rest wanted to be ace fighter jockeys. that's just the nature of the flight sim afficionado. there are various reasons players turn to primarily using bombers more than the rest of the population, physical issues, computer issues, internet connection issues. adding large bomber formations wouldn't garner a noticeable increase in subscribers and allowing unbridled access would be detrimental to the game.
i really believe the appeal of just having access to large bomber formations with auto guns that would increase survivability along with giving them higher value targets (like an enhanced strat system) will be enough incentive for more people to make more bombing runs and be successful rather than suicidal. with some exceptions (the darwin awardees that exist anyway) if it costs players to choose large formations, and the benefits are increased survivability as well as higher rewards for being successful, they will be less likely to bomb and bail, or run low alt suicide runs. the b-29s are rarely wasted on front line battles for bases where most of the action is because the reward is negligible compared to the risk. that is reason enough to see so few of them flying now. nobody wants to risk 300+ bomber perks to anything but higher value targets with better rewards. and the existing strat system isn't reward enough to take the trip very often.
the perk point system works for what is supposed to do. modifying it to address something like large bomber formations will enhance it's usefulness. the perk system is also an effective control system to prevent over use of certain things because people can't control themselves. i'm having difficulty understanding why you would oppose it or consider there is a better control method, and there has to be a control in place.
if you want more epic experiences it would be better to start by petitioning for a strat system that is more in depth than what exists now. targetable supply lines, supply depots, and associated factories that are tied together and can affect the ability for a country to fight the others would be a good start. it's pretty safe to say the current system is lacking in more ways than one. with a better strat system, you will see higher numbers of bombers being used. then add your idea for large formations.
i'm having some difficulty grasping the idea of hardening buildings to make them more difficult to destroy and making the ground they're on more valuable as a target than the buildings themselves. just doesn't make sense. hard targets such as buildings and structures, rail yards, trains, aircraft and vehicles are always the primary targets. by destroying those objects you affect the ability for the enemy to wage war against you. hitting those targets requires some effort to be precise. whereas blowing holes in the ground is a lot easier to do and doesn't do anything but make holes in the ground. even the bombing campaign to demoralize the civilian population called for hitting buildings, not the streets or surrounding grounds. the fact that things other than buildings and structures were hit was more a matter of human error than intent. hardening the buildings and structures would have more adverse effects than i think you're seeing.
as for flying in formation, when i was in a squad, we practiced flying in formations. the goal was to try and stay within 100 feet of each other and required some work to accomplish. i've seen other squads flying bombers and fighters in formations both in the main arenas and special events. it can be done fairly easily.
-
I'm not overestimating. I don't believe that this idea will draw new subscriptions in droves, but it will help to set AH further apart.
People buy with their eyes. This is in part eye candy. If I am new to flight sims and I start comparing a game like IL2 to AH it will be a tough choice. They both have strong points IL2 might just have more strong points, AHs big one is the potential arena population. Large formations would be an attention getter. Most guys won't even get into the strat aspects of the game for a year while they get beat up trying to learn to fly and fight. Strats are an out of sight, out of mind aspect of the game.
This idea is also practical for the reasons I've already stated. It just makes sense that the most iconic image of the war should be seen regularly in AH.
I agree that most guys come in here with their (stay with me here because I'm using your own statement to prove my point) EYES ON FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. They want to be fighter jocks. If they are uneducated about the realities of air combat they will probably come in and try to re-enact common themes found in media...escorting bombers, attacking bombers, fighter sweeps without ever giving thought to how little they know about air combat.
No matter how you look at it, this feature will enhance their first impression of the game. It will give them any of those experiences they chose. Too much regulation of this feature would be a mistake. Not enough would be a problem only if every means was exhausted in the effort to steer troublemakers in the right direction.
You make plenty of good points on why/how to keep players behavior in check. Your point on bomb and bails brought up another idea. Back to the punishment. Any player who bails out of a large formation doesn't get a new one that day. Maybe two days. It's a silly practice and it makes perfect sense to say 'if you throw it away, you lose it.' Would a commander in ww2 be given another command if he blew off his responsibility to his unit?
Even after a sortie where drones were lost, those drones will be replenished 1 every half hour simulating resupply problems.
The perk system only benefits vets who know how to manipulate it. Green newbs are punished for lack of skill the way the perk system works. They don't even have the benefit of a few free perks as a result of joining. I'm not opposed to using the perk system to regulate this idea. Never have been, just weary of over-regulation at the expense of the fun.
The 'strat grounds v building destruction' stems from oddities that I noticed long ago. All pilots in the war were rewarded, in a manner of speaking, for completing missions. Coming home alive was praise worthy. If they destroyed a hard target they might get a little more praise, but all who participated got it regardless if their bombs hit the target.
The pinpoint accuracy of the current system is ridiculous and buildings can only be blown up once leaving nothing for other players to hit when in RL bombers at the rear of the group got just as much credit as the leads.
Making the ground the target eliminates the need to hit buildings to get credit for a sortie and allows many players to get credit for hitting strats, not just the lucky first ones. It also creates a way to attach huge values to the "target area" so that the target can be repeatedly hit giving credit to multiple players. It creates a need/demand for numerous bombing runs to strats while taking the focus off of fighter bases and towns.
The act of hitting the ground is a concession to playability. We don't have the vast number of useful targets to provide entertainment and a purpose to bomber pilots.
In RL, we still bombed, bombed out cities. The demoralization didn't stop just because much of the target was gone. We kept hitting them, hence bombed out targets still make valid targets. Buildings weren't necessarily the 'target' in the war, morale was the target, buildings only served as a land mark. I know how that sounds but it is the truth. We could care less if they had no place to live or not, we wanted to destroy their will to fight and we bombed them whether they were living in a sturdy home or a bombed out shell of a structure. You got it backwards, hitting a home was inconsequential to the mission even if it provided much of the demoralization. If half of them were left standing, it meant nothing, they got the message.
Trains and buildings weren't the only targets at rail yards. The tracks themselves, which might consist of acres and acres of tracks and come abouts, were also targets. You might as well say the ground here was a target.
Obviously factories and refineries were a different story. The structures needed to be rendered useless otherwise production might go on, but for our purposes it doesn't really matter. We need targets that can provide entertainment and by 'pretending' that they are still valid targets and hitting the ground until a predetermined value has been reached we can accomplish this. It's a means to an end.
I don't like overly modeled buildings. I don't want them at all, I only suggest this method because of the tendency of ideas being rejected if they don't revolve around using the same old system instead of trying new methods. I certainly agree that hardening structures that fighter/bombers might use is a bad thing. I think normal modeling and dirt as the target is the best way to go for strats. As for bases and towns, I would like to see them get away from using this method there too.
Flying formation is not that easy. It's rarely done well if it is done and I have never seen a large well coordinated formation in AH.....ever. Plenty of people try it, but it never lasts more than a few minutes.
-
My thoughts, sorry for the multiple quotes:
Large bomber formations
Replacing real players with drones and increasing the take off time seems like a bad idea. Many do not fly the buffs as it is because of the long flight time. Many seek player vs player experience in online games. One could attack large buff formations in offline as well. Experience would be the same.
AI gunners for the formation.
Again player is being replaced by the AI and personally I do not like it. Gunning from one position instead of all the guns is more realistic, but also means less player vs player skill.
Complaints that the recent wind changes make bombing too difficult.
The complaints I've seen about bombing accuracy after the wind change seemed to be a knee jerk reaction related to scores. Regardless, the ridiculously accurate results bombers have been getting for years should never be brought back. Combined with the more realistic randomness of bomb hits, large formations will produce more realistic bombing experience and results. The novelty of a change like this would probably placate any lingering wind worries.
On one hand you want to increase the formation to combat the wind effect making the bombing too difficult, but on the other hand you say that the bombing is already too accurate. These points go against each other. The guys who are after high scores do not pinpoint the ords, troops etc very often. They bomb multiple towns in a single sortie, because that gives the high score. With spread out formation multiple towns would still be easy to hit.
This is especially important on late nights when Euro players may be getting less game for the same dollars spent by US players. Additional arguments can be made along this line.
With 24 bombers, the ability for a formation to endure the less realistic, hard maneuvers that can be seen in game should be reduced along with the gamey factor. Formations would have to make longer, wider turns if they choose to make second passes on the same base.
Say there are 60 players in off peak time in the arena divided equally between the three sides. Now couple of players decide to make a bombing mission. These players are out of combat all the time they maneuver their gigantic formation around. If one player could control 24 buffs, then 4 players could put up a mission for 96 bombers. Even 24 would be huge compared to the number of players in one country. Maybe you get some 4 fighters to intercept that overwhelming number. And those fighters mostly combat the AI with maybe one gun manned by a real player. Not the experience I seek from an online game.
New players have enough of a learning curve without learning to gun from a bomber. A certain amount of success is required early on or only the most devoted or motivated will stay. An inexperienced player may not even have the skill to land for months let alone get kills. Doesn't have to be easy mode, but there should be a little more chance.
Always been this way, fighters are at an advantage until the gunner positions are mastered and that is not too common.
Again, it's unrealistic and an unfair advantage when two or more fighters hit bombers from multiple directions.
Even when players gather enough to build large missions, they rarely have the cohesiveness to stay in a tight formation where they might provide mutual fire support.
If you have a large formation and the player controls only one gun it takes a lot more time to learn the gunnery. If AI and you shoot at the same time there are many bullets flying and it would be hard to tell which are yours. If the player mans only one gun then the skill will not matter a lot, because single turret does not contribute much. Most is done by the AI.
On one post you stand for new players and want them to have a better experience in flying buffs, but on others you want the players to be making long flights, wait for the lost buffs to be replaced or punish them for lack of skill. I couldn`t imagine anything worse. Say a person bails out because something comes up in real life. You return to the game only to find out that you can`t up any buffs for a day or two.
I could also say that fighters have a disadvantage against the buffs until proper interception skill is mastered. It all depends on the players. If you have a three plane formation with AI guns and two fighters attack from different locations. Roughly half of the guns would shoot at one and half at another. Currently you can pick the closest and fire from everything you got and then turn to the next. Player`s skill plays more role and you have more chance in fighting off the attackers. I believe the gunners communicated with each other in real life, calling out targets. So all guns firing at one does not seem so unrealistic to me.
Building large missions should be up to the players in an online game. The leader plays an important role in selecting the pace and keeping the formation tight. Communication between the participants is necessary. This is one part of the piloting skill of the bombers in AH2. Replacing real players with an AI because they do not possess the skills needed to keep the perfect formation is questionable for me. On large missions to strats every player does not even need to calibrate. They can set the salvo/delay and drop on command. That allows them to spend more time in guarding the formation.
the b-29s are rarely wasted on front line battles for bases where most of the action is because the reward is negligible compared to the risk. that is reason enough to see so few of them flying now. nobody wants to risk 300+ bomber perks to anything but higher value targets with better rewards. and the existing strat system isn't reward enough to take the trip very often.
I operate on the exact opposite principle. Taking high value bombers to front line solo is safer because you can retreat towards your own territory quicker. The more time you spend behind enemy lines the higher the chance of interception by multiple fighters. I bet unescorted Lancasters return to base more often from striking front line bases than from strats.
There are some things I really like about the current strats system. First of all bombing those targets affects the whole war because the downtime of various objects can be increased a lot. I have a lot more motivation to hit them now. Secondly all is located in the same convenient place. It is easier for the interceptors to guess where the buffs are going and they have more motivation to intercept and stop them. In case of zonal bases or various other spread out targets it becomes more difficult to intercept because it is harder to guess where the buffs go. Especially so if the number of players is small. Proper interception is not chasing buffs from the base they overfly, but taking off from another field to be at the suitable altitude and position for attacking them before they get to the target. I think more targets would be cool. Like destroyable bridge to stop the supply convoy etc. I also think more targets mean more spread out players.
I have no complaints against the comets, the HQ should be a heavily defended target anyway. The players risk their perks and they usually get close to make the guns effective. Seems fair to me.
-
i pretty much agree with your opening statements Asterix. i think Muzik has an overly optimistic view of the appeal of his idea.
I operate on the exact opposite principle. Taking high value bombers to front line solo is safer because you can retreat towards your own territory quicker. The more time you spend behind enemy lines the higher the chance of interception by multiple fighters. I bet unescorted Lancasters return to base more often from striking front line bases than from strats.
it is very rare to see a flight of b29s at 5-12 thousand feet, which is average for most bombing runs on a base that is being fought over. those that do take b29s into those fights generally have perks to spare and don't care too much if they're lost. the ones i have seen lately have been used more for pork runs at 15-20 thousand feet on undefended bases and on high alt strat runs. at this point you're more likely to see b24s, b17s, lancs, and b26s because it doesn't cost anything to fly them.
There are some things I really like about the current strats system. First of all bombing those targets affects the whole war because the downtime of various objects can be increased a lot. I have a lot more motivation to hit them now. Secondly all is located in the same convenient place. It is easier for the interceptors to guess where the buffs are going and they have more motivation to intercept and stop them. In case of zonal bases or various other spread out targets it becomes more difficult to intercept because it is harder to guess where the buffs go. Especially so if the number of players is small. Proper interception is not chasing buffs from the base they overfly, but taking off from another field to be at the suitable altitude and position for attacking them before they get to the target. I think more targets would be cool. Like destroyable bridge to stop the supply convoy etc. I also think more targets mean more spread out players.
have to say that is odd. there is much less incentive to hit the strats now than there used to be. and it doesn't take long to re-supply them so their effect on the war effort is negligible. they would have a higher target value and be much more enticing to bombers if they were multi-tiered and spread out more. think about the possibility of mulitple strat targets within medium sized cities rather than the single mega city/strat system we have now. if the existing strat system were expanded to include lumber mills, steel mills, vehicle assembly plants and major rail stations, there would be all sorts of possibilities for changing the dynamics of the war. add in more supply convoys and trains, maybe even ship yards that control the ability to spawn ships, and the depth of the strat system becomes something more in line with the whole idea of war.
lumber mills would impact the respawn time of town buildings.
steel mills would impact the respawn time of hangars.
vehicle assembly plants would impact the supply convoys.
rail stations would impact the supply trains.
ship yards would impact the time or ability for a port to spawn a cv task group and supply barges.
make the headquarters control the radar system again.
make it a little more difficult to resupply strats so it can't be done as easily as it is now.
i can't say it would stop the hordes fighting over 2 or 3 bases but, it would most definitely make long range high alt bombing runs more palatable, not to mention the increase in the number of roaming buff hunters. as of right now, porking undefended bases is more rewarding than strat runs.
-
have to say that is odd. there is much less incentive to hit the strats now than there used to be. .
Unless there has been a major change in the past 4 weeks, this should be very incorrect.
The strats had been broken for years, which made them totally worthless as a target. With the big change mid/end August 2012, this was changed to the better.
And it actually takes a lot more effort to resupply them than to smash them.
-
Unless there has been a major change in the past 4 weeks, this should be very incorrect.
The strats had been broken for years, which made them totally worthless as a target. With the big change mid/end August 2012, this was changed to the better.
And it actually takes a lot more effort to resupply them than to smash them.
then they are broken now. i've seen the strats leveled with little to no visible effect. and i've seen them resupplied faster than i would have thought possible, without a horde doing it. the only good thing is it is tougher to level the strats now. there really isn't much incentive to hit them. you can do more damage porking bases.
-
then they are broken now. i've seen the strats leveled with little to no visible effect. and i've seen them resupplied faster than i would have thought possible, without a horde doing it. the only good thing is it is tougher to level the strats now. there really isn't much incentive to hit them. you can do more damage porking bases.
Don't know what you would call a "visible effect", increasing town and item downtimes from 30 to 60, 90 or even more minutes has quite some impact on the battlefield. A town with max dt 30 under attack can be easily held against enemy attacks with only one guy running supps in the m3.
It's a totally different matter with max dt of 90 minutes.
And on resupply time, you can do the math: Factory downtime is 180 minutes, one drop of supplies shortens it by 4 minutes (and you can only resupp one factory ata time). It really does take a horde to fix the strat damage in short time.
And no matter if 2 guys are resupping for hours of a horde is doing it for 20 minutes, it always takes more effort (in terms of manhours) than to smash the strats.
Before this system was introduced in mid 2012, the entire strats system was broken and thus totally irrelevant. So "less incentive than it used to be" ain't correct in any way.
-
Before this system was introduced in mid 2012, the entire strats system was broken and thus totally irrelevant. So "less incentive than it used to be" ain't correct in any way.
it's all a matter of perspective, which from my experiences, your perspective is slightly clouded. considering there were more notieceable attacks on strats with the old system than there are now, primarily during u.s. prime time when the highest populations are online, less incentive is accurate from what i have observed. the old strat system wasn't perfect but, if the same principles that are in place now were put in place with the old strats, they would have been better than the current system.
-
it's all a matter of perspective, which from my experiences, your perspective is slightly clouded. considering there were more attacks on strats with the old system than there are now, primarily during u.s. prime time when the highest populations are online, less incentive is accurate from what i have observed. the old strat system wasn't perfect but, if the same principles that are in place now were put in place with the old strats, they would have been better than the current system.
1. There were hardly any start attacks under the old system. They have increased by several times. After the change I started to spend the majority of my fighter time defending the strats (with literally hundreds of high bomber kills), something which wasn't necessary before not only because they had no impact, but epsecially because nobody came.
2. The old stat system wasn't perfect? Which strat system are you now referrign to: The old one before the recent (2012) changes, or the "very old one", going back about 4 years ago?
I ahve always been playing the "strats game" a lot, both as a fighter as well as a bomber, and have been concentrating on it almost exclusively since the 2012 changes. And yes, I did keep extensive logs and notes on damage inflicted, downtimes and such ;)
-
1. There were hardly any start attacks under the old system. They have increased by several times. After the change I started to spend the majority of my fighter time defending the strats (with literally hundreds of high bomber kills), something which wasn't necessary before not only because they had no impact, but epsecially because nobody came.
2. The old stat system wasn't perfect? Which strat system are you now referrign to: The old one before the recent (2012) changes, or the "very old one", going back about 4 years ago?
I ahve always been playing the "strats game" a lot, both as a fighter as well as a bomber, and have been concentrating on it almost exclusively since the 2012 changes. And yes, I did keep extensive logs and notes on damage inflicted, downtimes and such ;)
whatever strat system was in place before the mega city was put in place. when i'm on between 7 and 10 central time, i can count the number of strat runs on one hand. there are more base porkers running around than strat killers.
-
whatever strat system was in place before the mega city was put in place. when i'm on between 7 and 10 central time, i can count the number of strat runs on one hand. there are more base porkers running around than strat killers.
Having said that, is there a desired ratio?
-
whatever strat system was in place before the mega city was put in place.
That's the very old one, the "zone concept", which not only worked very differently, but was also mainly attacked for points, not gameplay effect. The former ones were much higher that today due to different target layout, the latter one was also much more limited than today's.
when i'm on between 7 and 10 central time, i can count the number of strat runs on one hand. there are more base porkers running around than strat killers.
It's still vastly more strat raiders than before the mid 2012 fixing of the strats. That there are more base porkes is just the nature of the beast, the closer tactcial targets always get more attention. Long range flights are not for everyone.
But the new system brought the long range option back to the game. Before there was no important and useful long range target in the game at all and thus it was much rarer than today.
The very old (zone) strats mostly came only under attack when they were conveniently close to be reached in a few moments. As they only resupplied the zone, it made no sense in terms of gameplay to attack remote strats. And again, it was just done because of the points, perks and the short distance.
-
That's the very old one, the "zone concept", which not only worked very differently, but was also mainly attacked for points, not gameplay effect. The former ones were much higher that today due to different target layout, the latter one was also much more limited than today's.
It's still vastly more strat raiders than before the mid 2012 fixing of the strats. That there are more base porkes is just the nature of the beast, the closer tactcial targets always get more attention. Long range flights are not for everyone.
But the new system brought the long range option back to the game. Before there was no important and useful long range target in the game at all and thus it was much rarer than today.
The very old (zone) strats mostly came only under attack when they were conveniently close to be reached in a few moments. As they only resupplied the zone, it made no sense in terms of gameplay to attack remote strats. And again, it was just done because of the points, perks and the short distance.
in that case i say to you, if the current strat system has not done anything to increase the incidence of attacks and decreased the risk/reward of making any attacks, then it is yet broken. and Muzik's wish/desire for large formations with auto-gunners is made even more valid simply due to the increased probability of survival.
the hq in the old system was the highest value long range target that i can remember because it had the most visible impact. i haven't made any recent attempts at the hq and i haven't seen any impact from an hq strike. does the radar still go down when the hq is leveled?
-
... does the radar still go down when the hq is leveled?
oh ya, the whole country goes blind. It's not a fun time to a pilot, other than a resupply goon heading for HQ/Strats. :airplane:
-
the hq in the old system was the highest value long range target that i can remember because it had the most visible impact. i haven't made any recent attempts at the hq and i haven't seen any impact from an hq strike. does the radar still go down when the hq is leveled?
Yes, but just like in the old system, it's usually back up quickly by resupply. In terms of 'impact' it's still as pointless as it used to be for the past ~10 years.
-
Yes, but just like in the old system, it's usually back up quickly by resupply. In terms of 'impact' it's still as pointless as it used to be for the past ~10 years.
Just my new guy opinion, but i have a lot harder time in game when our strats are damaged, especially when radar is down country-wide.
Perhaps the strat damage and resultant effects have more impact on newer players than game veterans? I've joined in HQ runs which were fairly quick, but the strat resupply is long and grueling....
-
I'm not overestimating. I don't believe that this idea will draw new subscriptions in droves, but it will help to set AH further apart.
People buy with their eyes. This is in part eye candy. If I am new to flight sims and I start comparing a game like IL2 to AH it will be a tough choice. They both have strong points IL2 might just have more strong points, AHs big one is the potential arena population. Large formations would be an attention getter. Most guys won't even get into the strat aspects of the game for a year while they get beat up trying to learn to fly and fight. Strats are an out of sight, out of mind aspect of the game.
This idea is also practical for the reasons I've already stated. It just makes sense that the most iconic image of the war should be seen regularly in AH.
sorry Muzik but you are over estimating, a lot. the value of the bombers isn't going to increase by increasing the size of the formations. people comparing something like il2 or warthunder to aces high are looking at the graphics, not the bombers or the flight models. if they don't like the graphics, 100 plane formations wouldn't change their minds.
I agree that most guys come in here with their (stay with me here because I'm using your own statement to prove my point) EYES ON FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. They want to be fighter jocks. If they are uneducated about the realities of air combat they will probably come in and try to re-enact common themes found in media...escorting bombers, attacking bombers, fighter sweeps without ever giving thought to how little they know about air combat.
No matter how you look at it, this feature will enhance their first impression of the game. It will give them any of those experiences they chose. Too much regulation of this feature would be a mistake. Not enough would be a problem only if every means was exhausted in the effort to steer troublemakers in the right direction.
You make plenty of good points on why/how to keep players behavior in check. Your point on bomb and bails brought up another idea. Back to the punishment. Any player who bails out of a large formation doesn't get a new one that day. Maybe two days. It's a silly practice and it makes perfect sense to say 'if you throw it away, you lose it.' Would a commander in ww2 be given another command if he blew off his responsibility to his unit?
again, over estimating the value of the bombers. do a film of a mission being flown by a bunch of fighters in formation and you will get more attention than a formation of bombers. especially considering the fact that you believe it to be difficult to do.
looking at 24 plane formations, with auto-gunners...there would be less need for fighter escorts than there is now. and i'm talking about controlling usage based on player success/failure (i.e. avoiding retard behavior to increase the opportunities to behave like a retard if that is how they choose to waste their points), you on the other hand talk about penalizing in a manner that would drive people away. world war 2 pilots wouldn't fly their planes in the manner that 99% of the player population flies their toon planes, should all players be punished and denied the use of toon planes for doing such things? this is a combat flight simulator, taking peoples toys away is not the way to encourage them to continue to pay for the privilege of playing with the toys. letting them earn it by being successful is more encouragement than denying access based on behavior.
Even after a sortie where drones were lost, those drones will be replenished 1 every half hour simulating resupply problems.
The perk system only benefits vets who know how to manipulate it. Green newbs are punished for lack of skill the way the perk system works. They don't even have the benefit of a few free perks as a result of joining. I'm not opposed to using the perk system to regulate this idea. Never have been, just weary of over-regulation at the expense of the fun.
how would having to wait 1/2 hour to get a drone back be any incentive whatsoever? that's a bit contradictory to what you're wanting to accomplish and the idea of over regulating. the perk system rewards everyone once they figure out its value. the abuse is only coming about because it's made easier by the arena accomplishments being tied together, stop that and you stop most of the abuse.
i think you're overlooking the fact that we don't have civilian populations to affect with morale. aside from the ethical aspects, it just doesn't fit with an air combat simulator. we don't have multiple large cities with industrial centers and heavy troop concentrations to bomb. we don't have armies of ground troops to demoralize and in need of air superiority in order to invade a country and take over its cities. that's a different game. the value of bare ground is zero. the credit given to real bomber crews was dropping ordnance on a target and surviving long enough to return to base. they didn't get credit for dropping bombs on civilians or bare ground. the number of bombers put into the air against a target was a matter of logistics based on the knowledge that bomber crews were going to be killed and targets would be missed. the more planes in the air with bombs the more likely there would be success against the enemy. and i believe saturation bombing (which is what you're talking about) wasn't even thought of until vietnam. we have bases, towns and strats. bases with their buildings and towns are the ends to the means. the buildings on bases, in towns and at the strats, are the primary targets...aircraft, vehicles, rail roads, supply convoys are secondary. changing that, changes the entire game to something that would be too arcade like.
oh and i forgot..would you like me to show you how not difficult it is to fly bombers in formation? we can do a strat run and i can show you.
-
*bump*
this could be a valid idea (assuming htc is open to it) with some ironing out of details...just within the context of how the war is played out in the arenas now, i.e. nothing that requires a major change to the existing terrains or a change in how the war is won.
-
I would say limit max amount of bombers to 9 or code a dot command to replace cntrl 1-9
-
Why not just go with the smallest organizational/operational unit size from the 8th AF, whatever it may be. Is it a 12 bomber group? Great, make that the max number of bombers one can take up at a time.
-
Why not just go with the smallest organizational/operational unit size from the 8th AF, whatever it may be. Is it a 12 bomber group? Great, make that the max number of bombers one can take up at a time.
The smallest operational unit is an element (3 planes) which is part of a flight (6 planes) which is part of a squadron (12 planes) which is part of a group (4 squadrons/48 planes).
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/8thAForg_zps5d34fdd3.png)
-
The smallest operational unit is an element (3 planes) which is part of a flight (6 planes) which is part of a squadron (12 planes) which is part of a group (4 squadrons/48 planes).
Well then I'd say that were this change to take place, 12 would be a reasonable limit.
-
Well then I'd say that were this change to take place, 12 would be a reasonable limit.
Six could be just as reasonable a limit. So could three.
Will this bring in more players or will it merely fill the sky with bomber drones and require fewer?
-
I know you read the op Arlo...ya just never know.
-
I know you read the op Arlo...ya just never know.
:D
-
I'm still feelin 24.
It's big enough that one guy can feel like a force by himself. 12's not bad.
24's big enough that it would take 6 good fighter pilots to wipe him out. It's not common to find 6 guys hunting buffs together last I saw. Who knows, maybe it starts a new trend...schwarms. Then counter schwarms.
Consider this also. If one guy only has 12 bombers and we continue to see a lot of the same lone wolf strat runs we see today, then 3 decent fighters could wipe him out easily. It's not hard to find 3 or 4 fighters in a group, so it's fair to say the chances are good that we start to see a lot of buff hunting going on.
We already know that 3 bombers are easy meat. 4 or 5 won't be that much more of a challenge. 6, 7 a tad bumpier. So all it takes is knocking out 4 or 5 to dramatically reduce the risk involved in taking this formation out. If 3 attackers take out one each on the first pass and second pass, they have a great chance of finishing the job.
At 24, attackers have to make more passes through more bombers. A much higher risk level that results in a long hard fight before it gets easy.
For those who really enjoy squad ops, 24 is more likely to encourage a small squad of guys to fly together for a buff hunt. 12 would only require/encourage 3 or 4 guys.
If these little hunting parties become a trend, we might see more escorts in groups.
24 is better for off peak/late night hours. I've been on when there is virtually no air activity. At those times, it would only take one or two guys doing bomb runs to keep me entertained in the absence of good fighter v fighter engagements. With 12, I could possibly finish off half on his way to target, rearm myself and finish the other half on his way back. Not likely with 24. That would probably piss him off and he might leave. If he survives and we both end up with successful sorties, he may just laugh it off. Win/win.
I know it's not uncommon to see a half dozen guys get together and fly a bombing mission together, but usually you are more likely to get 3 or 4.
4 guys, 96 birds. Now it starts to look like a strategic bombing mission.
Six could be just as reasonable a limit. So could three.
Will this bring in more players or will it merely fill the sky with bomber drones and require fewer?
Suggesting no change at all before you asked your question suggests you don't want to hear that it is feasible.
I enjoy this game as a combat game, but that doesnt mean I want to play it for another 10 years exactly as it is now. New airplanes now and then don't change the game or the tactics and challenges to play it. I want to experience different aspects of air combat and I am not the only one. It will impress someone. Will it be the deciding factor, maybe, maybe not.
It certainly wont require fewer, that's why the suggestion to change strat point accrual. Any number of changes could help maintain the need for bomber participation.
-
Actually, a good 163 pilot ckd get 5-6. No offense but in the MA; such ahigh number otero es is just too much. Youwant that many have a friend up. I can use in the SE arena's tho. If anything even 9 is too much for the average player.
But I my 262 gets it's rockets you can have this :aok
-
No offense but in the MA; such ahigh number otero es is just too much.
Well let's hear it, what makes it too much? Give me your theoretical scenario that got you to that conclusion.
-
Well let's hear it, what makes it too much? Give me your theoretical scenario that got you to that conclusion.
sorry for the poor spelling. Took a much needed map.
Idk about other but I LOVE killing bombers. The more the merrier in my eyes. But is 24 really needed? I'm sure I could get atleast 5-7. That would further prove the vulnerability of bombers vs fighters. 163's would make it easier.
On the bomber end, You don't need a bunch of bombers to do alot of damage. Hell I've done 25k I. 17's and I'm terrible at bombers.
Of feasible point would be a massive mission to the strats and SE.
My problems lie with 24 bombers. Too much. Maybe 9, I'd prefer 6. 4 people to constitute a squadron.
It's just seems(it's already been pointed out) your trying to recreate the bombing campaign of the ETO.
-
Were this to go into effect it'd probably be a good time to implement a speed limit of sorts... At max cruise, you have a tight formation of combat boxes, at military power you're all over the place.
-
That would make sence
-
I'm sure I could get atleast 5-7. That would further prove the vulnerability of bombers vs fighters.
First you haven't told me, in your theoretical version of my idea, if you assume auto gunners. If there are auto gunners, how hard would it be to take out 5 or 7? I don't know that and neither do you. As Gyrene and I discussed, it might be similar to flying in and out of field ack. Field ack is easy enough to take out, but it's NOT MOVING and you're not going to attempt to hit gunners, that would be ridiculous. Your only option would be to take out the bombers as quickly as possible to reduce your risk and improve your odds each time you go in.
My asnwer to your theory is, you may get that many if AI gunners accuracy sucked or with no AI at all. Or you may end up with a smoking engine, PW, fire, etc. ect.
But if it is that easy, 12 or less bombers makes increasing the size of the formation almost pointless. If it only takes 2 guys to finish the group then the survivability aspect is gone.
That would further prove the vulnerability of bombers vs fighters. 163's would make it easier.
:huh At what point did I say I was trying to disprove the vulnerability of bombers? The whole point of adding more was to mitigate that fact, AND to add something fun to the game.
On the bomber end, You don't need a bunch of bombers to do alot of damage. Hell I've done 25k I. 17's and I'm terrible at bombers.
At no point was the idea ever to "do more damage." In fact one of the biggest problems of the idea was that they would do too much damage. That's why we discussed a way to make the strats eat up the additional firepower and provide a need for bomber guys to make more runs on strats. Now this is the second sentence you used to advertise your success in game. Your motives are starting to sound suspicious. :D
My problems lie with 24 bombers. Too much. Maybe 9, I'd prefer 6. 4 people to constitute a squadron.
Again, you haven't provided any other reason why 24 is too much. Is the argument above all you can offer? Why 6? Why 4? What on earth would make 4 a choice at all? 6 even? That wouldn't even be worth to programming time.
It's just seems(it's already been pointed out) your trying to recreate the bombing campaign of the ETO.
I didn't realize I hid it so well.
Um, yea. That's what I'm doing. Is there something wrong with trying to add something seen in the war, novelty and entertainment to the game?
The purpose of the game is fun; THAT's what I'm trying to create. 4,6 or 9 wouldn't even be worth the effort or provide the benefits I am suggesting.
-
Why should bombers get AI gunners? Why not just buzz a cv?
And a good chunk of players font know how/where to attack bombers.
Not bagging but I know how2where to strike, and frequently hit all three planes in 1 pass, flaming 1-2.
Back again to the kills. Would killing drones be registered as a kill as it currently is?
Btw I honestyl wouldn't care less if it was added. I fly against hordes for a reason:kills, lots of kills.
But why would you suggest AI gunners for he whole formation?
Would bostons get the same deal?
-
Why should bombers get AI gunners? Why not just buzz a cv?
think about it...with a large formation, unless htc allows more than 1 player to join, there isn't an effective way to defend. with a.i. gunners like we have on ships and airfields, defending against multiple attackers becomes more possible, the bombers aren't just easy mode targets. if they program the a.i. gunners the way i've seen it done, survivability of the attackers would be much better than flying through the middle of a cv group and slightly better than flying through field ack.
And a good chunk of players font know how/where to attack bombers.
Not bagging but I know how2where to strike, and frequently hit all three planes in 1 pass, flaming 1-2.
you need more practice...
Back again to the kills. Would killing drones be registered as a kill as it currently is?
kind of a silly question don't you think?
But why would you suggest AI gunners for he whole formation?
why not? every bomber has gun mounts, shouldn't they all shoot or are they just there for decoration?
Would bostons get the same deal?
if it has calibrated bomb sight, it should...unless you have a good reason to the contrary.
-
Imagine a squadron of 12 guys wanting to up 24 bombers each for a mass raid. That's 288 bombers.
What are the odds of system overload with that many moving objects in visual range? What about
a maxed out squad of 32 players? That's 768 bombers. That's more than the USAAF hit Dresden
with in 4 separate raids. Don't think prime-timers would try this? I anticipate even higher. Even if
the server and individual player pcs can handle that many planes within visual range at once, each
B-17 or B-24 has 6 gun positions. The AI gunners would number 4,608 ... or more.
Even dummied down that's a lot of potential lead slinging. Sounds like Blood Dragons on steroids
(minus the maneuverability - which wouldn't be required with such a flying aaa carpet).
http://www.gonzoville.com/games/an-ackstar-is-born/
I say take baby steps (if any). Go from element to flight (3 to 6). If AI guns are considered, keep
it at element level (3).
-
Imagine a squadron of 12 guys wanting to up 24 bombers each for a mass raid. That's 288 bombers.
What are the odds of system overload with that many moving objects in visual range? What about
a maxed out squad of 32 players? That's 768 bombers. That's more than the USAAF hit Dresden
with in 4 separate raids. Don't think prime-timers would try this? I anticipate even higher. Even if
the server and individual player pcs can handle that many planes within visual range at once, each
B-17 or B-24 has 6 gun positions. The AI gunners would number 4,608 ... or more.
Even dummied down that's a lot of potential lead slinging. Sounds like Blood Dragons on steroids
(minus the maneuverability - which wouldn't be required with such a flying aaa carpet).
http://www.gonzoville.com/games/an-ackstar-is-born/
I say take baby steps (if any). Go from element to flight (3 to 6). If AI guns are considered, keep
it at element level (3).
not that i personally haven't considered the same ramifications however, i think charging incremental perk points for each added box will nullify long term excessive usage after people burn through their points. and they will burn through their points, with or without auto gunners. Muzik seems to have some other idea for control, as yet unvoiced but i'm sure if enough people harp on it, he will spill the beans. the perk point system would be easier to implement without having to reprogram everything. the possibility of system overload is the same as it is now. htc has repeatedly stated the servers aren't even close to being taxed. player system overload could become an issue, if 200+ plane formations were encountered.
did you ever play warbirds? as i mentioned before, the bombers there have auto gunners. they aren't laser accurate at 1000yds, get in close to the formation and they are like field ack. and only the guns that have los on you will fire at you, not all of the guns on each bomber.
if large formations were implemented, in increments of 3 plane boxes, unless htc allows more than 1 person to join the formation as a gunner, the only chance of survival for the formation is auto guns. even then, 3 guys with 152s or 262s could make short work of them.
of course, at first, there will be a lot of base rolling going on. 1 man bomber missions on bases, with hordes defending. there would be a bit of chaos going on. and i still don't think the idea would have the appeal to outsiders that Muzik thinks it would, but we will never know for sure unless it happens.
-
If AI isn't applied, the bombers will show thier weakness(if the right attacks are applied) anyone here worry what would happen if 999 got his hands on these???
Perk incriminating would have to be a must.
For example of how bombers are fodder,
Tour 161
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/players.php
tour 160
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/players.php
And I suck
-
HT set up bomber formations as three plane elements. This is an accurate portrayal for such. A six plane flight (box) would be as far as I would suggest at this time. It doubles the bombers commanded by a single player. Three players could operate a raid at group level. That's a pretty significant difference. If AI gunners are to be considered, it would be even more significant. I would also just leave it an option of single plane, element or flight. Perkies for a flight of 6 should be significant. Perhaps to the level of a B-29. Also, the ENY for a flight of 6 should be less than 10.
(http://www.hwelte.com/Group-Box.jpg)
(http://www.absa3945.com/29%20mai%201943/B17formation/bomberformation.jpg)
-
looks like the latest patch has something that may make flying bombers in formation easier to do...
Added a new autopilot mode that attempts to maintain the same relative position to your designated wingman (using the .wingman dot command) when it is first engaged. It is not intended through any hard maneuvers and it has a maximum range of 1000 yards. The default key for this command is Control W. NOTE: This function may be unmapped in your keymap requiring you to manually map it. It is under the flight section of the key mapper listed as Autopilot Wingman Mode.
e-z mode formation flying...
*recap* one of Muzik's arguments was how difficult it is for people to fly in formation, hence the need for large bomber formations.
-
looks like the latest patch has something that may make flying bombers in formation easier to do...
e-z mode formation flying...
*recap* one of Muzik's arguments was how difficult it is for people to fly in formation, hence the need for large bomber formations.
there's a new patch? :O
-
Huh. You don't ask for much do ya? :D
:airplane: Wasn't quite sure where to put this post, so I thought I would tack it onto your thread! I fly bomber missions about 95% of the time when I am in the game! Here is what I have seen and things I do to try to keep everyone together. First thing I do after takeoff is a "dot speed" 120 climb in B-17's, with 50% fuel and 12 500lbers in the bomb bay. Next, always turn at a "standard" rate of 3 degrees per second and only turn no more than a 30 degree heading change at a time. A standard rate of turn is established by using your "turn and bank" indicator, which has 2 little "dog" houses at the top of the instrument. When you bank, place the vertical needle on one of the "dog" houses and you are making a "standard rate" turn. Takes a little more time for en route time to target, but keeps bombers together. At cruising altitude, I use 35 inches manifold pressure and default RPM. This way, if anyone is behind, its is a lot easier for them to catch up. It is easier for bomber elements out of position to rejoin the main body of the formation of bombers.
When I join other people's missions in B-17's, they go full throttle all the time, default climb and cruise and then people are scattered all over the place.
I give course changes in degree headings, example: "Turn left heading 230 degrees", I never say left turn and then start turning and then with out saying anything, roll out on the heading I want.
I expect each pilot to fly his aircraft from the #1 or pilots position, so they can see the headings I want.
While I know that most of the people in this game are not real pilots, there is no reason they can't be trained, it just takes a little Patience and practice instructions to help them out!!
-
No offense but in the MA; such ahigh number otero es is just too much. Youwant that many have a friend up.
No offense taken. Your sentences are barely readable and you still wont provide a good reason that 24 is too much. Not a highly worrisome counter argument.
Although there is one POSSIBLY valid argument that I knew would come up but I wasn't going to offer. Never offer ammunition to the man who wants to shoot you.
Arlo brought it up. Too many of these in the air at one time might cause problems.
Youwant that many have a friend up.
I don't want to fly them, I want to shoot at them. I rarely ever fly bombers.
If anything even 9 is too much for the average player.
you haven't even come up with any theories to support your position, let alone having any solid reason to pick a specific number.
But I my 262 gets it's rockets you can have this :aok
This proves your only real motive is your fear of not getting what you want before something else is worked on.
262s would be more useful with large formations to shoot down. And who needs rockets on a 262 to kill buffs? :huh
-
What are the odds of system overload with that many moving objects in visual range?
...That's 768 bombers. That's more than the USAAF hit Dresden
...The AI gunners would number 4,608 ... or more.
Even dummied down that's a lot of potential lead slinging.
I did consider this. It is a very real possibility.
First, it's not too frequent that you see 12 guys get together for one raid. It happens, but not excessively. With this idea in play, you can bet your pink skirt that it will happen for exactly the reason you alluded to.
But what makes you so sure such a large number would want to fly the bombers. I'm guessing the bigger part of the attraction is going to be shooting them down. Either way it comes down to this.
As with everything in this game, the novelty will wear off eventually. So the initial desire to have those massive raids may very well weed out those whose PCs wont handle it and they will decline repeating the exercise again.
Other than that, Htc could implement a similar restriction I seem to remember from AW days. They could limit the total number of bomber formations at a time or per hour. They controlled/stopped spit usage this way. In this case it would be a constant restriction on how many were available.
No military in the world had unlimited resources. Our resources could be limited based on how much damage the strats (or a new bomber factory like the old spit factories) have sustained. Normal bomber allowance per country/per hour could be 50 at any particular time.
It could be first come first serve or players could be allocated slots. Or it could be a combination of the perk idea and the resource restrictions.
There are plenty of possibilities. I don't know which would work best and I would be glad to hammer it out with anyone who has the knowledge to fill in details I don't have. Saying it can't happen or shouldn't happen is shall we say... I better not. :D
I do know these are all easily programmed solutions and I believe that the novelty will wear off after a while and the bomber pilots will go back to the more common smaller groups.
If they don't, then it means the idea is too fun don't it? :D In that case there would need to be a counter balancing act. Every thing done in this game can be counter balanced in some way if the will is there.
As for the computing capabilities, I don't know if it this is possible but maybe a feature could be added that reduced the detail on bombers for low end PCs. Example, when they come in range, they register as a large formation and automatically lower details for those objects for any player who has the appropriate check box enabled.
I don't think it will be an overload on the servers. The servers, if I remember, can handle much more than what they show as maximum capacity. The servers are just swapping data for the most part. Could be wrong though. If so, back to the resource limitation.
The AI gunners would number 4,608 ... or more.
Even dummied down that's a lot of potential lead slinging.
Are you suggesting that 4,608 guns would be firing all at one time? :lol As Gyrene stated, they have limited range and don't fire until a target enters it.
I say take baby steps (if any). Go from element to flight (3 to 6). If AI guns are considered, keep
it at element level (3).
I say you have other motives for objecting. 6 isn't even worth the effort and provides not a single one of the benefits I have suggested.
I have no problem with baby steps. So If they must be considered, go for 10 large formations (24) at any particular time. Hell, if that's too much, I'd even go for 5 formations of 24 at any one time.
-
Earl,
You are a professional pilot. The majority of the players in this game have no patience for flying by the book, hence they cannot be trained even if they had the coordination to hold a nice formation.
Gyrene thinks I personally find it too difficult. I don't. It is tiresome but it is rare to find others with the patience for it. And I really could care less that they don't have it. I'm not trying to force it on them. I'm only suggesting a way to make it a more common sight.
I fly fighters mostly and I keep a sharp watch on my six, so staying in tight formation with another fighter is not high on my priorities especially absent "real peripheral vision".
Peripheral vision and scanning for attackers are the key difficulty in bombers. Flying form is not a problem for a pilot, it gets harder when you are pilot, gunner and bombardier.
I don't believe pilots should be so taxed in game so I don't agree that training is the answer.
-
HT set up bomber formations as three plane elements.
What is your fixation on 3 and 6 all about? Is it only because you believe PCs and servers cant handle it?
Any other reasons why those are better numbers than 24?
-
What is your fixation on 3 and 6 all about? Is it only because you believe PCs and servers cant handle it?
Any other reasons why those are better numbers than 24?
What is your fixation with 24? My perspective was made clear when I illustrated a sky full object overkill with but a few grievers er players. Why can' this idea be explored conservatively?
-
i think the new .wingman command is working with the bombers. just got off the lwma and it looked like some bish and rooks were experimenting with it. 12 b-17s are a hand full for a single attacker, even with 30mm. :bhead
-
i think the new .wingman command is working with the bombers. just got off the lwma and it looked like some bish and rooks were experimenting with it. 12 b-17s are a hand full for a single attacker, even with 30mm. :bhead
:huh :salute
-
ya i know...
Added a new autopilot mode that attempts to maintain the same relative position to your designated wingman (using the .wingman dot command) when it is first engaged. It is not intended through any hard maneuvers and it has a maximum range of 1000 yards. The default key for this command is Control W. NOTE: This function may be unmapped in your keymap requiring you to manually map it. It is under the flight section of the key mapper listed as Autopilot Wingman Mode.
just imagine, take off, auto climb, .wingman <player>, get into gun position and wait. now the attacker(s) have more than 1 gunner to deal with.
-
What is your fixation with 24?
I thought it was pretty clear.
1. A better representation of mass bombing in ww2.
2. A better bombing experience.
3. A better fighter experience.
4. More challenge than 3 bombers can provide attackers.
5. More survivability than 3 bombers.
6. More chance of success for newb pilots who may get frustrated with the learning curve of ANY aspect of this game.
7. A better first impression for new players.
8. Something unequaled in any other MMO.
9. A player multiplier, that increases fun and action for everyone. Which just so happens to be 10x more beneficial for late night.
10. Probably a few I forgot.
My perspective was made clear when I illustrated a sky full object overkill with but a few grievers er players. Why can' this idea be explored conservatively?
No your perspective was that it MIGHT NOT be possible because your theory it could not be modeled in a way that would work on PCs or the server.
I addressed your theory with potential solutions and yet you returned to your original vague argument that three is better.
Why is three better?
Is it more realistic?
Is it more fun to attack 3 than 24?
Is it more challenging?
Is it impossible to implement 24?
I could go on but I don't think you can answer any of my questions truthfully or with enough facts to back it up. The only good theory I can find is the possibility that it will overwhelm some players PCs.
Yes, three was an element. 3 was also a suicide mission, and rarely, if ever happened. If you're going to point out the facts, don't forget to tell the whole story.
...a sky full object overkill with but a few grievers er players. Why can' this idea be explored conservatively?
So bomber pilots are grievers?
I Didn't I just suggest a conservative alternative? 5 formations of 24 allotted to an entire arena is too radical?
-
ya i know...
just imagine, take off, auto climb, .wingman <player>, get into gun position and wait. now the attacker(s) have more than 1 gunner to deal with.
Tell me more.
-
interesting...looks like there is some glitching going on with the new wingman setting.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350459.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350459.0.html)
sounds as if maybe the command is trying to force a speed setting as well as alt...that could explain the jitters people are experiencing. i have to wonder how it would work if everyone set their manifold pressure and rpms the same.
i need to find someone to wing with in heavy bombers and do some experimenting... :D
-
So bomber pilots are grievers?
No .... but players are. If you suggested one player operating 24 tanks, it would still
be object overload capability by one squad.
I Didn't I just suggest a conservative alternative? 5 formations of 24 allotted to an entire arena is too radical?
Yes. Going from 2 drones to 23 drones is radical.
-
Other than that, Htc could implement a similar restriction I seem to remember from AW days. They could limit the total number of bomber formations at a time or per hour. They controlled/stopped spit usage this way. In this case it would be a constant restriction on how many were available.
No military in the world had unlimited resources. Our resources could be limited based on how much damage the strats (or a new bomber factory like the old spit factories) have sustained. Normal bomber allowance per country/per hour could be 50 at any particular time.
It could be first come first serve or players could be allocated slots. Or it could be a combination of the perk idea and the resource restrictions.
I understand why some bombers are already restricted by perk cost, but not allowing subscribers to fly buffs at all because of total number or slot restriction would make some quite unhappy. How about restricting the total number of buffs controlled by a single player to 3, ...oh wait that is already done ;).
24 bombers controlled by one player seems unbalancing to me too, because in my opinion single fighter pilot should have a reasonable chance in stopping one buff player getting to target and sending him/her back to tower. I believe that large formations should consist of many players. Maybe there should be a formation mode option similar to the autopilot wingman mode.
-
What's the point of adding something you can do offline???
You know you can change ai drones right? No Ned to pay $15 a minh anymore for you.
Not to mention there's no challenge without a real person(not that there any better in game) trying to shoot you down.
Wether or not I get my 262's rocked has anything to do with m opinion/wanting this.
Now if you were to say random liason and cargo flights in enemy territory, that would be cool.
-
Perhaps a very crude (on purpose) autopilot for multiple formations so that when it does come time to jump to the guns the bombers don't all break formation from one another?
[/quote
This is going to make missions alot more fun :rock
-
Not to mention there's no challenge without a real person(not that there any better in game) trying to shoot you down.
you wouldn't sing that song if there was auto gunners in a 24 plane formation.
*pssst* you know if you need a 262 to kill bombers, you're doing it wrong...try it in a 110.
-
No ai period
-
party pooper...no ai? so you would prefer them unable to defend...then pat yourself on the back when you land 20 kills in your 262?
:rofl :rofl :rofl that would be like all the da heroes congratulating the cherry picking ho tard dweeb in the tempest when he lands 3 kills.
-
party pooper...no ai? so you would prefer them unable to defend...then pat yourself on the back when you land 20 kills in your 262?
:rofl :rofl :rofl that would be like all the da heroes congratulating the cherry picking ho tard dweeb in the tempest when he lands 3 kills.
I forgo a :D at the end :rofl
injustice don't see how I'd kills aren't registered and scored and you don't game name In Lights how itt nothing but a harder offline run
-
If you suggested one player operating 24 tanks, it would still
be object overload capability by one squad.
Apples and oranges. And the word is "COULD" not "would".
You don't know what htc might find when experimenting with this. You don't know what steps they might take to avoid overload. You haven't considered any other game changes that might make this a controlled and measured activity.
So it's safe to say, your only concern is object overload. Point taken and addressed.
What's the point of adding something you can do offline???
You know you can change ai drones right? No Ned to pay $15 a minh anymore for you.
Not to mention there's no challenge without a real person(not that there any better in game) trying to shoot you down.
Wether or not I get my 262's rocked has anything to do with m opinion/wanting this.
Now if you were to say random liason and cargo flights in enemy territory, that would be cool.
When you start making half way intelligent comments, stop repeating after someone else, stop hinting at your awesomeness in game, and tossing INSANELY random ideas into the mix you might turn out to be worth discussing this with.
I understand why some bombers are already restricted by perk cost, but not allowing subscribers to fly buffs at all because of total number or slot restriction would make some quite unhappy. How about restricting the total number of buffs controlled by a single player to 3, ...oh wait that is already done ;).
That little emoticons knowing wink is hilariously ironic being that you don't know what the idea was. No one ever said that single or 3 plane formations would be restricted by hour slots. Only the large formations.
24 bombers controlled by one player seems unbalancing to me too,
That's because, and I could tell this from your first comment, you haven't read nor understood all of this post.
because in my opinion single fighter pilot should have a reasonable chance in stopping one buff player getting to target and sending him/her back to tower.
Why? State reasons please.
I believe that large formations should consist of many players.
Again, why? Because we have an abundance of players who want to be easy meat for fighters?
Maybe there should be a formation mode option similar to the autopilot wingman mode.
Interesting idea, I wish I would have thought of that.
Perhaps a very crude (on purpose) autopilot for multiple formations so that when it does come time to jump to the guns the bombers don't all break formation from one another?
This is going to make missions alot more fun :rock
Um, maybe you should reread a few posts back, coumyideagh
-
double post
-
Allowing the historically accurate and correct 24 bomber group would indeed alter the dynamics of the game. And it should be a 'perked' option. But if implemented it should follow...
- forcing the player who initiated the flight to take off and then slow down to allow all 23 remaining bombers (and 4 wings) to form up on his flight
- allow only for slow moving turns otherwise the out-of-formation bombers go poof like current AI bomber wingman
- cost something like 500 or 1000 perks
- when landing, the lead player lands first but if he/she ends their flight to early, they loose perk points to airborne planes
- allow the lead bomber to switch between wings and then individual bombers
- AI gunners for all other wings
- only one other player can gun in a wing of their choice
But seriously - this would be a game changer...take down an entire airfield - flattened - with one pass. Imagine a formation of 24 Lancs or B-29. OMFG. Flattened. Image a entire squad upped bombers each with 24 bombers - you could have up to several hundred bombers in the air. However, it would be historically accurate for a true bombing mission. But OMFG. Imagine the mayhem it would create!
24 may be too much. How about 12?
-
I forgo a :D at the end :rofl
injustice don't see how I'd kills aren't registered and scored and you don't game name In Lights how itt nothing but a harder offline run
:headscratch: in english please...i no speeky gobble de gook.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 24 bombers in formation such as this be able to pretty much level a field and a town in one pass? In the hands of one player?
So we change the object hardness to make that impossible, right? Now jabo has little to no role, or unequivocally requires a horde.
How is either of those two scenarios beneficial to gameplay?
Wiley.
-
Allowing the historically accurate and correct 24 bomber group would indeed alter the dynamics of the game. And it should be a 'perked' option. But if implemented it should follow...
- forcing the player who initiated the flight to take off and then slow down to allow all 23 remaining bombers (and 4 wings) to form up on his flight
- allow only for slow moving turns otherwise the out-of-formation bombers go poof like current AI bomber wingman
- cost something like 500 or 1000 perks
- when landing, the lead player lands first but if he/she ends their flight to early, they loose perk points to airborne planes
- allow the lead bomber to switch between wings and then individual bombers
- AI gunners for all other wings
- only one other player can gun in a wing of their choice
But seriously - this would be a game changer...take down an entire airfield - flattened - with one pass. Imagine a formation of 24 Lancs or B-29. OMFG. Flattened. Image a entire squad upped bombers each with 24 bombers - you could have up to several hundred bombers in the air. However, it would be historically accurate for a true bombing mission. But OMFG. Imagine the mayhem it would create!
24 may be too much. How about 12?
I agree except for
The perks. At first, I can accept them. I would rather see changes to the strat game as we discussed and a restriction of bombers based on simulated resource allowances.
Flattening airfields. Not the intent I had imagined. Strat runs are more realistic and an AVA mod should agree. Flattening fields is fine as long as the current method of shutting down fields by taking out buildings is changed somehow.
12. As I said earlier. 12 is slightly more challenging for fighters, but 12 is still easy meat for 2 good fighter pilots and 500 to1k perks is not going to be worth the risk at all. That perk cost alone is going to draw out the sadistic sob's in droves.
I like the speed restriction idea for the entire flight. A realistic cruise speed. Someone pointed it out a couple pages back. With this kind of defensive possibility, no more high speed running buffs.
Slow turns was always my in mind.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 24 bombers in formation such as this be able to pretty much level a field and a town in one pass? In the hands of one player?
So we change the object hardness to make that impossible, right? Now jabo has little to no role, or unequivocally requires a horde.
How is either of those two scenarios beneficial to gameplay?
Wiley.
You're not wrong, but you're not right and you haven't read the whole post.
-
You're not wrong, but you're not right and you haven't read the whole post.
All I've seen is anything that breaks your idea should be 'changed somehow'. Not exactly a rock solid refutation.
Wiley.
-
All I've seen is anything that breaks your idea should be 'changed somehow'. Not exactly a rock solid refutation.
Wiley.
Let me repeat myself, you haven't read the whole post. That's why its "all you've seen."
I've agreed to every reasonable concession others have suggested. So far in those that have disagreed with the idea, Gyrene is the only rational one. I have agreed that perks are the most likely starting place.
Arlo says large formations would overload the system. I conceded that MAYBE they could start out with only 5 large formations being allowed in flight at any one time. Hardly a system overload.
Bomb drop dispersal sounds to be a needed change in the modeling anyway. If porking bases is a problem, 24 bombers in formation wouldn't be able to laser sight buildings with proper dispersal.
So what else did you miss?
-
Arlo says large formations would overload the system. I conceded that MAYBE they could start out with only 5 large formations being allowed in flight at any one time. Hardly a system overload.
So what's to prevent griefers from upping them at a rear base and leaving them sit on the runway to take them out of play?
Bomb drop dispersal sounds to be a needed change in the modeling anyway. If porking bases is a problem, 24 bombers in formation wouldn't be able to laser sight buildings with proper dispersal.
What if they come in at 2-5k? Only a dedicated defense is going to be able to stop 24 buffs There's going to be a pattern to the drop, any way you cut it. There will be an angle and timing to one-shot the major targets at a base.
That problem only gets worse if you've got a couple guys working together with a couple of these giant formations. You're giving 2 guys the power to insta-level a base.
Wiley.
-
What if they come in at 2-5k? Only a dedicated defense is going to be able to stop 24 buffs There's going to be a pattern to the drop, any way you cut it. There will be an angle and timing to one-shot the major targets at a base.
That problem only gets worse if you've got a couple guys working together with a couple of these giant formations. You're giving 2 guys the power to insta-level a base.
Wiley.
i don't know Wiley. if the bomb formations were setup the way they would have been in real life, with a change to the bomb drop dispersal that matches the position of each plane independently, and all planes dropping at the same time, it would still be difficult to level a base in 1 pass...unless they're using b-29s. they could definitely do some serious damage, especially on v bases, ports and small bases, de-acking would be the biggest effect. if they were allowed to set salvo, they could get a little more precise but, it wouldn't be the precise devastation that can be accomplished with a coordinated effort of 4 sets of lancs now.
keep in mind that if perks were used to control the usage, in a tiered cost system where each additional set of bombers costs more and more, it wouldn't take long before everyone burns through their perk points and leave just a small percentage with enough points to keep using them at will. granted it would be havoc in the arena until all the points were used up.
-
interesting...looks like there is some glitching going on with the new wingman setting.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350459.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350459.0.html)
sounds as if maybe the command is trying to force a speed setting as well as alt...that could explain the jitters people are experiencing. i have to wonder how it would work if everyone set their manifold pressure and rpms the same.
i need to find someone to wing with in heavy bombers and do some experimenting... :D
:airplane: Dhawk and I ran some tests yesterday and we didn't have a lot of time to play with it, but one of the first things we ran into, was making turns at any bank angle, the wingman's aircraft did a lot of jerky around, control yoke jerking around constanly and we never did do a successful 90 degree change in direction. Someone pointed out that AH was working the bugs out, but as far as straight and level, no problem. We were using B-17's.
-
The only thing I said about in game perforance is I know HOW to attack bombers. I'm far from the best pilot in fact.
Now how accurate would this AI be? We talking the same as field ack?
Maybe the joining system cod be changed that each section could potentially have a gunner
-
i don't know Wiley. if the bomb formations were setup the way they would have been in real life, with a change to the bomb drop dispersal that matches the position of each plane independently, and all planes dropping at the same time, it would still be difficult to level a base in 1 pass...unless they're using b-29s. they could definitely do some serious damage, especially on v bases, ports and small bases, de-acking would be the biggest effect. if they were allowed to set salvo, they could get a little more precise but, it wouldn't be the precise devastation that can be accomplished with a coordinated effort of 4 sets of lancs now.
B29's probably are off the table as I can't imagine too many people having the perks to do it especially after the first while. An armada of Lancs should probably be considered the far more common 'worst case' scenario. Still, how often in an evening do you see 4 sets of buffs working in coordination versus a couple sets of bombers? In my experience it's far more common to see two than four.
keep in mind that if perks were used to control the usage, in a tiered cost system where each additional set of bombers costs more and more, it wouldn't take long before everyone burns through their perk points and leave just a small percentage with enough points to keep using them at will. granted it would be havoc in the arena until all the points were used up.
With the added dispersal, would it not make bombing at reasonable altitudes far more ineffective, to the point of not being worth it, particularly with the smaller formations?
Wiley.
-
Apples and oranges. And the word is "COULD" not "would".
You don't know what htc might find when experimenting with this. You don't know what steps they might take to avoid overload. You haven't considered any other game changes that might make this a controlled and measured activity.
So it's safe to say, your only concern is object overload. Point taken and addressed. <?
You don't know what htc might find when experimenting with this.
-
So far in those that have disagreed with the idea, Gyrene is the only rational one.
You're not very good at drumming up support. :D
-
Just wondering, would TBM's and And Kates have this attribute if they took off from a land base?
Or we talking just heavy and medium bombers
-
With the added dispersal, would it not make bombing at reasonable altitudes far more ineffective, to the point of not being worth it, particularly with the smaller formations?
Wiley.
we kinda covered some of that in the discussion of the strat/city complex (scoring, downtimes, etc...) a change to the bomb dispersal would actually work out better on the strats giving the bombers a wider path of destruction and i personally think it would make smaller sized bombs more valuable in that area. on the flip side, it could potentially require heavier ords to be effective on bases and possibly more 3 plane formations to do what can be done with 3 bombers now. depends on the actual dispersal distance, altitude at drop time, and how much damage is calculated based on bomb damage radius.
i guess i'll have to jump into some bombers this evening (instead of cleaning my apartment :D ) and see if i can get a better idea of how things would work out with a change in the dispersal from different alts.
-
we kinda covered some of that in the discussion of the strat/city complex (scoring, downtimes, etc...) a change to the bomb dispersal would actually work out better on the strats giving the bombers a wider path of destruction and i personally think it would make smaller sized bombs more valuable in that area. on the flip side, it could potentially require heavier ords to be effective on bases and possibly more 3 plane formations to do what can be done with 3 bombers now. depends on the actual dispersal distance, altitude at drop time, and how much damage is calculated based on bomb damage radius.
Just looking at the wind complaints, I'm not sure how much more effectiveness reduction buff pilots can take. If their only option to remain as effective as now is to spend perks, I don't see that being a particularly popular change.
i guess i'll have to jump into some bombers this evening (instead of cleaning my apartment :D ) and see if i can get a better idea of how things would work out with a change in the dispersal from different alts.
I suppose if each drone had a randomized delay it would become pretty uncertain. Okay... so what happens if the buffs come in at 3000 feet, at 100mph? Now the random delay has much less effect on bomb placement. You're going to be able to be a lot more precise than if you're at cruising speed.
Wiley.
-
Just looking at the wind complaints, I'm not sure how much more effectiveness reduction buff pilots can take. If their only option to remain as effective as now is to spend perks, I don't see that being a particularly popular change.
ya that wind complaint kinda puzzles me. i've yet to run into an issue.
I suppose if each drone had a randomized delay it would become pretty uncertain. Okay... so what happens if the buffs come in at 3000 feet, at 100mph? Now the random delay has much less effect on bomb placement. You're going to be able to be a lot more precise than if you're at cruising speed.
Wiley.
at anything below max speed they're cannon fodder. if someone tried to come in at 3000ft flying 150mph they're toast just from the base auto ack. if the base dar isn't down, as soon as they cross into the circle, a p40e has time to get off the field and get above them before they can hit the base.
-
So what's to prevent griefers from upping them at a rear base and leaving them sit on the runway to take them out of play?
That is the same as hiding carriers. If htc wanted to stop this behavior, they could. Just off the top of my head, 10 minutes of inactivity while sitting on the ground results in loss of the formation.
What if they come in at 2-5k?
Something else you missed. No bomb drops. Below 10k AGL bombs don't release. Which should be the case for all heavy bombers regardless of large formations.
There will be an angle and timing to one-shot the major targets at a base.
You don't know that yet and it all depends on how committed htc would be to making it work.
I can come up with counters to anything you bring up. Getting rid of ".salvo 1" for heavy bombers is just one way to put an end to that. And other game changes were already discussed to prevent this, but you didn't see them.
That problem only gets worse if you've got a couple guys working together with a couple of these giant formations. You're giving 2 guys the power to insta-level a base.
As opposed to giving 1 or 2 fighters the power to ruin bombing in the game. Good point there.
In my experience it's far more common to see two than four.
Exactly the point I made to negate Arlo's concern.
With the added dispersal, would it not make bombing at reasonable altitudes far more ineffective, to the point of not being worth it, particularly with the smaller formations?
That is a benefit, not a detriment. The accuracy of bombers is too gamey as it is. Bomber pilots would have to get used to a different performance standard. But your worry was that they would flatten a base. Taking away the laser accuracy works against being able to "one shot" base structures.
If you read the whole post you would see that my suggestion was made with major changes of the game in mind for the future. which included taking the focus off blowing up buildings as a function of taking bases.
I have no wish to throw this feature in the game to wreak havoc on game play, but it could be done right now with the right balances in place. Later on with other changes this idea could be even more viable.
-
Something else you missed. No bomb drops. Below 10k AGL bombs don't release. Which should be the case for all heavy bombers regardless of large formations.
(http://olive-drab.com/images/ploesti_03_700.jpg)
-
(http://olive-drab.com/images/ploesti_03_700.jpg)
Your point is?
I know it happened at times in the war. The balances don't exist to make this as risky as it was in RL (or as relatively rare) so it winds up being a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH.
Those bombers likely suffered intense flak. In AH they fly over GV battles with little to no air opposition or flak on a regular basis.
10k drop limit is a concession for gameplay.
-
Not to mention the B29's bombing on the deck
-
Your point is?
I know it happened at times in the war. The balances don't exist to make this as risky as it was in RL (or as relatively rare) so it winds up being a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH.
Those bombers likely suffered intense flak. In AH they fly over GV battles with little to no air opposition or flak on a regular basis.
10k drop limit is a concession for gameplay.
My point is that the limitation you are suggesting is one more game modification and it doesn't reflect
either history or design. To make your wish work you're suggesting more and more modifications to
the game. Your 'concession' is additional coding and the 'benefit' to the individual player is questionable, at best.
-
Your point is?
I know it happened at times in the war. The balances don't exist to make this as risky as it was in RL (or as relatively rare) so it winds up being a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH.
Those bombers likely suffered intense flak. In AH they fly over GV battles with little to no air opposition or flak on a regular basis.
10k drop limit is a concession for gameplay.
actually Muzik, in the case of bases, the balances do exist. auto ack at the bases is heavier than those low alt bombers would have experienced. they would have gotten more small arms fire from troops on the ground than land based flak. as low as that pic Arlo posted would end up in no bomb detonations in game. but even at 2000ft base ack would knock them down easily
i don't agree with the 10,000ft limitation either...it's not a logical or reasonable limitation.
-
ya that wind complaint kinda puzzles me. i've yet to run into an issue.
at anything below max speed they're cannon fodder. if someone tried to come in at 3000ft flying 150mph they're toast just from the base auto ack. if the base dar isn't down, as soon as they cross into the circle, a p40e has time to get off the field and get above them before they can hit the base.
Muzik's 10k then. And he's going to take out how many of the 24 before they get there? I'm a slightly above average dweeb when it comes to hitting bombers, but I think I'd be doing really good in that scenario in my jug to get 6 of them, and I would not give survival much of a chance.
You don't know that yet and it all depends on how committed htc would be to making it work.
In other words, "it would have to be changed somehow"...
I've gone back and read the entire post. These large formations hinge on changing the entire game around them, how every aspect of the air to ground war works. The only reasonable response to that is yes, it's possible.
Feasible or a good idea? Anything we say either way can essentially be handwaved by 'Oh it won't be that way.' I lost count of the number of times you've used 'You don't know that' in this thread. I think you're severely overestimating how attractive it would be, and also how beneficial it would be.
But, in any case, good luck with it.
Wiley.
-
Muzik's 10k then. And he's going to take out how many of the 24 before they get there? I'm a slightly above average dweeb when it comes to hitting bombers, but I think I'd be doing really good in that scenario in my jug to get 6 of them, and I would not give survival much of a chance.
in a jug? i wouldn't give great odds on taking more than 4 or 5 down before the jug goes down. with a 110 or 190a8 carrying the heavy gun package, the odds are better. with a ta152, 262 or 163, the odds are far better.
-
in a jug? i wouldn't give great odds on taking more than 4 or 5 down before the jug goes down. with a 110 or 190a8 carrying the heavy gun package, the odds are better. with a ta152, 262 or 163, the odds are far better.
Ok, maybe a touch of hubris on my part. ;) I was being a touch optimistic. That was also accounting for me being in a decent position when they broke dar. The 152 takes a rad hit on its second pass, but yeah the jets might fare a bit better.
And that's all headed toward the base at once, under the control of one player.
Since the idea is predicated on changing the entire air to ground game to something else, there's little point discussing the particulars of how it would work under current conditions.
Wiley.
-
My point is that the limitation you are suggesting is one more game modification and it doesn't reflect
either history or design. To make your wish work you're suggesting more and more modifications to
the game. Your 'concession' is additional coding and the 'benefit' to the individual player is questionable, at best.
Fine, then you have no problem with the low level bombing going on so your concern is negated either way.
"...doesnt reflect design" ? what design?
As for history, it certainly does reflect it. Flying that low was dangerous regardless of flak concentrations (as Gyrene just commented) until late in the war when allies had air superiority. So the risks were there. And even IF, there weren't as heavy concentrations compared to AH there was more scattered throughout the country for various reasons. We have nothing between bases and towns aside from occasional flakpanzers. Taken together, it's hardly the same risk levels.
Apparently you think that coding something like a 10k drop limit is some monumental undertaking. It's not. It's a simple change with relatively little effort involved. What other huge barriers were you referring to? Because as I said, most of what I suggested was for future overall improvements, not immediate needs.
actually Muzik, in the case of bases, the balances do exist. auto ack at the bases is heavier than those low alt bombers would have experienced. they would have gotten more small arms fire from troops on the ground than land based flak. as low as that pic Arlo posted would end up in no bomb detonations in game. but even at 2000ft base ack would knock them down easily
i don't agree with the 10,000ft limitation either...it's not a logical or reasonable limitation.
The most notable low level attacks by heavies of the war was Operation Tidal Wave. It was disasterous. I know there were other examples of low level attacks but compared to high level bombing they were 10x more dangerous and thus far less often, attack and multi-role fighters not included. So I believe restricting heavy bombers to 10k+ is more than logical and reasonable. That was the vast majority of their RL usage.
But personally, I don't really care whether it's used or not. Like you said, they are easy meat for fighters at those levels and since I rarely GV and am not highly invested in winning the war it won't affect me all that much. I only suggested it as a concession to GV complaints.
-
Since the idea is predicated on changing the entire air to ground game to something else, there's little point discussing the particulars of how it would work under current conditions.
It's not dependent or predicated on changing the entire game. But hell yea I had future changes in mind with it.
Are you telling me that if I go over your old post I won't find a single example of you agreeing with or making suggestions for what you believe are drastic changes?
-
190A8 would really puT a hurt on if the triggers were fixed. Won have to waste ammo
-
It's not dependent or predicated on changing the entire game. But hell yea I had future changes in mind with it.
Are you telling me that if I go over your old post I won't find a single example of you agreeing with or making suggestions for what you believe are drastic changes?
Sure. However, this idea on its own, if it were implemented into the game tomorrow would be horrible. It depends on the nebulous supporting game changes, a few of which have been vaguely referenced in this thread, to work.
Wiley.
-
Apparently you think that coding something like a 10k drop limit is some monumental undertaking. It's not. It's a simple change with relatively little effort involved. What other huge barriers were you referring to? Because as I said, most of what I suggested was for future overall improvements, not immediate needs.
Where did you imagine that? What I'm saying is your wish isn't as simple as even
you admit. You want one player to be able to control two full squadrons of heavy
bombers and when challenged my others in this thread about the practicality of
such a wish you have to add more to it to make it 'workable.' Sorry, I don't see
this wish representing a future overall 'improvement.' An improvement is not
a potential charlie foxtrot. Having said that, try not to take it so personal when a
wish of yours isn't met with accolades and praise by everyone. I'm sure you have
other ideas that may well stimulate and excite many of your fellow players. You may
even learn the fine art of true compromise and propose something similar that would
actually be more practical. That's how you generally build momentum behind an idea.
-
Sure. However, this idea on its own, if it were implemented into the game tomorrow would be horrible. It depends on the nebulous supporting game changes, a few of which have been vaguely referenced in this thread, to work.
Wiley.
Sir Reads a Little,
How often are you going to repeat what I already admitted to? With your own added dramatizations of course.
I never said it had to happen tomorrow. I never said I even wanted it tomorrow.
I made it crystal clear I believed other changes would improve the validity of the idea. Especially the strategic aspects of the game. "Future changes." Said it many times. I also said other changes would be preferable, but NOT dependent.
Your argument is a fail. All you have stated so far were things I already admitted to. Not once did I ever say throwing them in the game was the right way to do it.
I don't make the game, I just made a suggestion. That suggestion included the absolute basics that would work in game without being ideal and more advance suggestions that would take a considerable amount more work.
Is that clear enough for you? Should I repeat my sentiments here so that you can understand better? ...adding this feature without other changes in the game would be an injustice. It could be done, but it wouldn't be ideal.
And lets just get one thing out in the open for anyone who doesn't know that you're objections here are 90% more likely based on your petty little grudge against me than any other factor. I wonder how far I'd have to go back in your posts to find you agreeing with similar changes or ideas. Maybe even your own suggestions.
Where did you imagine that? What I'm saying is your wish isn't as simple as even
you admit. You want one player to be able to control two full squadrons
Mr. Pot or Kettle (Sorry it's hard to tell)
What planet did you get kicked off of? Are you serious? Do you remember this???
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,347308.0.html
I'll refresh your memory. ...PARATROOPER INFANTRY ROLES
In other words "full squadrons" of drone soldiers that attacked towns and GVs.
And you think your idea is different why? Because they take up fewer pixels on the screen?
You think your idea is simple why?
How well do you remember this???
(and oft I play devils advocate, regarding other wishes) but, and let me preface with my having no clue about how hard this would be to code, what about expanding the role of drunks in the game?
In other words "I intrude just for the sake of bashing others ideas without really adding to the discussion or seeking to add constructive criticism, I simply seek to troll and grieve."
Notice you also mention how little "clue" you have about the complexity of programming the idea and how vague you are about how complex the idea would turn out to be.
Now I'll stop responding to your retarded logic, childish argument tactics and personal attacks before I say something I'll regret.
Neither one of you nuts has come up with a single valid reason large formations couldn't be included other than one I already thought of. And judging by the new addition to the game, the idea is obviously not far from the mark is it!
-
:airplane: Dhawk and I ran some tests yesterday and we didn't have a lot of time to play with it, but one of the first things we ran into, was making turns at any bank angle, the wingman's aircraft did a lot of jerky around, control yoke jerking around constanly and we never did do a successful 90 degree change in direction. Someone pointed out that AH was working the bugs out, but as far as straight and level, no problem. We were using B-17's.
Well there's the answer to the "I want to fly formation myself because I'm awesome that way" guys.
If the system has a hard time keeping two players in formation through turns because of lag or whatever the cause may be, then don't force the system to do it.
You said it yourself Earl, you call out your turns. There's no reason the system should have to do all of the work. It's reasonable to assume if a formation of bombers makes a turn it is either planned and executed quietly or the lead calls out the turn.
The turns are the least of the coordination problem. The problem is keeping it together while under attack and to a lesser degree seeing a large group stay tight en-route.
-
Oh WAIT, I GOT IT.
1 24 bomber formation per hour, the pilot chosen by lottery.
Flame on.
I so look forward to the argument for this one. :lol
-
Oh WAIT, I GOT IT.
1 24 bomber formation per hour, the pilot chosen by lottery.
Flame on.
I so look forward to the argument for this one. :lol
:huh
Hmm and it cost perks to enter lottery :banana: :banana: :banana:
A tweaked idea but I like it. Formations of 6 would be the max unlotterized if this were implemented
-
lol, looks like Muzik is going franzvondramaqueen in this discussion...calm down bud. there is some legitimacy to the negativity and it should be addressed. some of what you're envisioning would require a lot of work to implement and would garner little return on investment.
-
[hissy-fit]
Seriously? If you don't get a response you like you have a hissy-fit? :lol
-
What started offf as fun discussion has now turned into superflous topic responses
:banana: :banana: :banana: :aok
-
I don't make the game, I just made a suggestion. That suggestion included the absolute basics that would work in game without being ideal and more advance suggestions that would take a considerable amount more work.
Is that clear enough for you? Should I repeat my sentiments here so that you can understand better? ...adding this feature without other changes in the game would be an injustice. It could be done, but it wouldn't be ideal.
'Not ideal' spelled 'completely broken'. 'Dependent' must mean different things to you and me.
And lets just get one thing out in the open for anyone who doesn't know that you're objections here are 90% more likely based on your petty little grudge against me than any other factor. I wonder how far I'd have to go back in your posts to find you agreeing with similar changes or ideas. Maybe even your own suggestions.
LOL "petty grudge"? I'm sorry, who are you again?
I'm done with this anyway, as it looks like your persecution complex just kicked in. Good luck with your complete game redesign idea.
Wiley.
-
That little emoticons knowing wink is hilariously ironic being that you don't know what the idea was. No one ever said that single or 3 plane formations would be restricted by hour slots. Only the large formations.
That is not what I was writing about. I replied to your idea of restricting large formations. I wrote that I understand why some bombers are already restricted by perk cost, but not allowing subscribers to fly buffs at all because of total number or slot restriction would make some quite unhappy.
If one player logs on and wants to take a large formation of buffs to bomb something, but he is not allowed to do so because of the restriction. He/she would be unhappy. The player uses small formation or does something else, but the waiting list is long. So what if he logs on some other time with the same intent only to find out that the restriction applies to him again. Wouldn`t that be frustrating?
With "How about restricting the total number of buffs controlled by a single player to 3, ...oh wait that is already done ;)." I was merely trying to make a humorous hint that the current system of 3 buffs may be better restriction than what you had in mind. Did not want to be rude or make fun of somebody.
24 bombers controlled by one player seems unbalancing to me too, because in my opinion single fighter pilot should have a reasonable chance in stopping one buff player getting to target and sending him/her back to tower. I believe that large formations should consist of many players.
24 seems too large of a force to be controlled by a single player, that is why I called it unbalancing. Say every country has 25 online players during offpeak hours. 4 people decide to make a strats bombing mission. 1 person could take 1 formation of 24 buffs because of the formation restriction. Other three could take escort fighters. 24buffs with 3 escort fighters vs 4 attacking fighters would be unbalancing although the number of players would be 4 vs 4. 24 buffs with 3 escort fighters vs 8 attacking fighters seems better, but there would be 4 vs 8 players. this would create imbalance in other fights happening at the same time.
I believe that large formations should consist of many players because player vs player experience is the main thing that draws me to online games. "Come and fight players all around the world" draws me to AH not "Come and fight large AI gunned armadas". I am not talking about technical issues involved with large formations, but emotional. For me it just feels different to attack something that has a real person at the controls to fight back. Maybe for someone else too, that is why I am pessimistic about the large single player controlled bomber formation. I am expressing my views about the general concept presented in this topic. I have no other reasons for arguing.
-
Seriously? If you don't get a response you like you have a hissy-fit? :lol
I got no problem with opposing arguments, I just don't tolerate repeated underhanded personal jabs no matter how minor. Especially by a shading troll.
And once again, your arguments get slapped down and you revert to childish jabs. How many times have avoided responding to the arguments now? Hell, the post before last you didn't even use words in your response, you just posted a pic. :lol You couldn't make an intelligent argument if your life depended on it.
Hissy fit? I'm just telling it like it is. Your retardedness knows no bounds, Paratrooper Drone boy.
I'm sorry, who are you again?
Read through your old posts if you're having trouble with your wits again.
-
... I just don't tolerate repeated underhanded personal jabs no matter how minor. Especially by a shading troll.
And once again, your arguments get slapped down and you revert to childish jabs. How many times have avoided responding to the arguments now? Hell, the post before last you didn't even use words in your response, you just posted a pic. :lol You couldn't make an intelligent argument if your life depended on it.
Hissy fit? I'm just telling it like it is. Your retardedness knows no bounds, Paratrooper Drone boy.
Read through your old posts if you're having trouble with your wits again.
Huh. I dunno, man. Maybe you oughta be the one reading through my old posts instead of instructing Wiley to dig through his if you think anything I've posted justifies your present behavior. I'm even willing to stand third party judgement regarding my behavior versus yours, since you seem a bit out of control at the moment ... to me.
Eh, I wasn't impressed by your wish and gave reason why. The worst thing I've said to you, so far, is that you're having a hissy-fit .... and that's just because you certainly seem to be. I'm not one to report the sort of juvie behavior you're exhibiting. But I can't speak for everyone else.
-
lol, looks like Muzik is going FransvonsmackdownKing thankyouverymuch in this discussion...calm down bud. there is some legitimacy to the negativity and it should be addressed. some of what you're envisioning would require a lot of work to implement and would garner little return on investment.
Fixed :D
I must salute you and thank you for the discussion Gyrene. It's been a pleasant surprise. I hope we can continue with it. But when someone repeatedly ducks arguments and has nothing to offer other than underhanded attempts at humor and deflection, I have to call it like I see it. Especially an admitted troll who most likely has been shading on the bbs for years now.
I realize the idea is more than just a "give us a Spitfire Mark 2,345." It wasn't intended to be quick toss in.
Any idea that involves any real changes to the game is not going to be simple or without additional game changes to go with it. Even the submarine wish isn't as simple as just throwing it into the game and it's nothing more than a new vehicle. It would change the game enough to require checks and balances and almost guarantee other significant game changes.
As for how much work my idea would take. The objects are already in game.
If I understand correctly, the strat city is a single object, perhaps with smaller objects attached, that is placed on new maps. This is why I suggested the point value of the entire city could be a fairly simple change. I don't know if the roads are separate objects or just a skin, but the same would apply if they were individual objects.
The same would go for other targets we already have in game or with large rail yards or other objects that could come later.
Slightly more challenging issues would be AI gunners and bomb dispersal. But again we already have features in the game with the same function so it may be a simple matter of adapting already coded functions.
Developing new 3d objects and artwork is the majority of the labor in this game. Little if anything we discussed involved new objects. Most was just changing values and perhaps adding new rules and definitions. So I don't believe this is a monumental undertaking.
The return or appeal we just have to disagree on. As interesting as the new wingman feature sounds I don't believe it lives up to the original idea. It may be more practical, but it doesn't support all the intended benefits. But, it's a good step in the right direction and might eventually indicate interest in this. I'm interested in seeing how big some bomber raids get.
My guess is that the lonewolf gameplay that has always been most common will be what keeps bomber guys on solo missions and supports what I have stated all along, after the initial novelty wears off, large formations would end up being 1 or 2 guys on their own doing their own thing.
-
only to find out that the restriction applies to him again. Wouldn`t that be frustrating?
Yes it would. Which is exactly why I don't advocate that idea as MY PERSONAL preference OR the perk controls that Gyrene prefers. I don't believe players should have to fly countless hours to achieve the ability to play better aspects of the game.
I do believe certain things need to be moderated which at this point is only accomplished by the perk system.
If Gyrene is right, then there wont be that many people interested in flying large formations so the limit wouldn't be a problem would it?
Anyhow, by your logic, we should do away with the perk system and let 262s run amuk because it's too frustrating.
I don't like the restriction but it was suggested as a concession until other game changes provided different means of control.
I was merely trying to make a humorous hint that the current system of 3 buffs may be better restriction than what you had in mind. Did not want to be rude or make fun of somebody.
You know what I think? I think Hitech had my idea in the first place but was worried about computing power and overwhelming numbers 15 years ago so he settled on 3. Now I think he may soon have to consider the games future and that computing power is 5x what it was when he added formations.
24 seems too large of a force to be controlled by a single player, that is why I called it unbalancing. Say every country has 25 online players during offpeak hours. 4 people decide to make a strats bombing mission. 1 person could take 1 formation of 24 buffs because of the formation restriction. Other three could take escort fighters. 24buffs with 3 escort fighters vs 4 attacking fighters would be unbalancing although the number of players would be 4 vs 4. 24 buffs with 3 escort fighters vs 8 attacking fighters seems better, but there would be 4 vs 8 players. this would create imbalance in other fights happening at the same time.
Actually, that would be realistic. Bombers almost always outnumbered the attackers and escorts in the ETO strategic offensive.
Your definition of unbalanced seems to be anything that is not 1 player to 1 player or that an encounter has to result in one team losing and one team winning. It's not that simple.
The game is for fun. Why cant the bomber pilot survive and the fighter pilots land a few kills? You said it yourself, frustrating customers is not a great idea. Don't you think a new guy might be less frustrated if he survives some of his first missions? Do you think 3 bombers is enough to give him that fair chance?
Large formations of 24 bombers would cause unbalance by dominating the game by destroying everything. We already discussed that problem by suggesting changing the strats along with other possible game changes.
Balance has absolutely nothing to do with how many fighters attack a bomber formation. Htc has repeatedly rejected suggestions to "auto balance" the game population and there are lopsided fights and hordes every day. The 4 v 4 scenario is not in the realm of logical possibility because we don't balance attackers and defenders when we launch missions and we never will because unpredictability and chaos are part of what makes it fun.
I believe that large formations should consist of many players because player vs player experience is the main thing that draws me to online games.
Stop exaggerating. Don't tell me you have never shot down a drone in the game or never will.
We choose online because 1v1 FIGHTER COMBAT is better than fighting drones. Bombers fly in a straight line while you shoot them down. It's like clubbing baby seals. That's NOT the challenge you are referring to is it!?
I am not talking about technical issues involved with large formations, but emotional. For me it just feels different to attack something that has a real person at the controls to fight back.
So when you attack drone formations now, you dont allow any of the guns to kill you other than the one with a real person behind it?
You are trying to suggest to me that it's better that a bomber pilot has an equal chance as you do in your fighter. It's skill v skill right?
Wrong. The bomber pilot has to jump from one gun to another to shoot at you. Then he has to understand that the lead from every gun on the bomber is different. He has to lose sight of you because he cant just turn his head as opposed to RL when there are multiple people on multiple bombers tracking your every move. F3 helps mitigate those disadvantages, but doesnt make it an even fight.
Bomber pilots are at a disadvantage in AH and always have been. Killing them is easy. You're inflating your ego if you think that taking out bombers as they are now is a fair fight.
Thanks for expressing your views.
<S>
-
Drones are a double edge sword. The guns kill, but at the cost of not moving.
Now that being said, there are a few options the bombers currently van do to prolong thier life, if not defleck the attacker.
Going into a climb, then diving after puts a large gap between main bomber and guns, as the drones are still climbing :rolleyes:
Now that being said, NOE bombers and 40k bombers ahave an advantage over fighters. It takes more time and space for a fighter to move at that altitude, and down on the deck, by being low, you force opponants to to attack from other angles by denying belly shots :old: