Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pepe on April 17, 2001, 05:30:00 AM

Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Pepe on April 17, 2001, 05:30:00 AM
Sorry to initiate another thread on this particular issue, but again and again, when somebody post some complain about buff accuracy / norden sight, the answer splits between the ones in favour of adjusting is to levels somewhere near the real thing, and the ones saying it's a needed gameplay concession. Sorry, but I don't buy the gameplay concession.

It is not a needed gameplay concession if the point is real accuracy would limit buff flying.

The actual problem underlying buff accuracy is the bomb blast radius, the damage inflicted to the ground, and the behaviour of bombsight. If bomb blast/damage model would be (now yes) accurate, the problem of accurate bombing would cure by itself. You do not need to be very accurate when dropping 1k near a flak, panzer or ack. And you are making a LOT of damage to whatever receives the hit, whether it is ack, structure, runway or flat grassy terrain.

Accurate bomb damage model and some realistic bombsight behaviour (gyro sinc time) would make some improvements in gameplay:



As it is today, buffing is a no brainer job for me, not a real challenge. No navigation skills, just point-and-click quakeish mood. Note that I am not talking about buff guns, I do think they are needed like they are today if the buff is to be playable at all. Neither on the turning ability of buffs when loaded. But the bombing thing....

I can only see this as it is currently implemented because technically there is no way to make it better. I mean framerate, bandwith, whatever. But no gameplay concession, please.

Cheers,

Pepe
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: TheWobble on April 17, 2001, 05:49:00 AM
Man,
Ive been saying this since i started playing AH.

You will now hear a bunch of crap about how the reason we need the joke bombs is because there are no mass bomber formations and that if you make them realistic nobody will fly them...

Well the way they are now not many people fly them (hmmm)

and as far as there being no mass bomber formations..guess what there are no giant industrial targets that would take mass bombers to dastroy either...hell the frigging CITY can be destroyed COMPLETELY by just 1 lone lancaster

So NO there are no mass formations...but there are also not targets that would require a mass formation to be SEVERLY damaged or destroyed.  

Gameplay concession ot not..bombs that are not effected by WIND, DRAG or DRIFT or DISPERSION have no buisness being in anything that dares to call itself a simulation.

I played in the MA for 3 months, all I wanted to do was bomb, i flew fighters now and then but mainley i flew bombers....well after a while the point and click one bomb at a time crap got boring to me aswell, even with the arado you had to do the same trash over and over...dropping 1 bomb at a time..no real skill required no element of chance at all...well I got bored quick enough and finally canceled my account..

EDIT:
I dont know about anyone else but the reason I stopped flying bombers is because the are so simple and the bombs so accurate and predictable that the whole process got so repeditive and old because it takes NO skill to do it..

Basically unless a fighter shoots down the bomber it will be able to pick EVERY target it wants to hit and will do it EXACTLY the same way EVERY TIME and will hit its targets EVERY time..because the bombs behave EXACTLY the same...and i hate to break it to ya but  THAT IS BORING!

Saying that people wont fly bombers because they bombs are not accurate to the point that every time they drop one it will land EXACTLY on target is like saying people wont fly fighters because EVERY bullet wont go EXACTLY where they aim EVERY time they pull the triger...but wait fighters DO have dispersion..uh ho..and 20x as many people fly fighters..uh ho..and fighters are more fun..christ this is scary.

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-17-2001).]
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: MANDOBLE on April 17, 2001, 06:13:00 AM
Pepe, agree completely with you except about buff guns. As they are now, buffs do not need scort fighters, and, IMO, this should be a critial, reallistic and funny part of the game. Interceptors against the buffs and the scorts. This way, negating an enemy base will imply big aerial battles for sure. Actually it is as simply as getting there with an alone B17, destroying the FHs and even killing one or two interceptors.
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Xjazz on April 17, 2001, 06:26:00 AM
Pepe you nail it right!

Xjazz
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: SOB on April 17, 2001, 06:46:00 AM
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001354.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001354.html)
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: janjan on April 17, 2001, 06:57:00 AM
All we need is that airfield damage model is changed. Make it so that hits on field area does some damage and maybe more if hit on runway.

There can be a procentage of damage to airfield in which pinpoint targets give some penalties and area hits other penalties or lowers the tonnage needed to take down hangars etc... It's all about damage modelling of ground targets. Why can't a city be an area target - sounds much more feasible to me.
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Degas on April 17, 2001, 08:03:00 AM
IRL, a 17 on it's own was dead meat.  Prior to the availability of round-trip fighter cover, the only thing that allowed ANY of the buff crews to survive their 25 missions utilizing daylight raids were the massive bomber formations (OOO-RAH, Mighty Eighth!).

I'm new, so I don't know much about AH, and the decisions to loft up laserwagons.  I'm having fun in buffs, but mostly from the gunners turret.  But it seems to me that making the suggested changes would tend to encourage coordinated play in AH.  And, from what I seen, that is a needed thing.  Anything that would encourage people to mount coordinated missions, I would welcome.  As is, people just seem to rotate and head for the nearest furball.

This may not even be possible, given the peculiarities of human nature, and the current scoring configuration.  Having a Theatre Command that would set missions and priorities is one way, but would require making a whole new game <grin>.

This is the way they are setting up WWIIOL.  You get points for killing the enemy.  You get way more points for killing the enemy as part of a Command-generated Mission.  Commanders will initially be the developers, and a few select beta testers.  Eventually, in-game promotions based on game points will determine the commanders at the different levels.  One thing I don't like about the WWIIOL setup is that you HAVE to survive and RTB in order to be awarded any points.  So the poor bastard who gave his life for his country gets nothing.

Just my $.02

<S>


Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: lazs on April 17, 2001, 08:17:00 AM
pepe and wobble we agree completely... I think people are starting to get a little fed up.  The cities need to be bigger and the gimicky fighter hanger deroofing= no fighters available needs to be rethought too.

i agree that the concessions have no place in a sim.  they stand out like a sore thumb and at this point, are destrying gameplay as well as immersion.
lazs
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: TheWobble on April 17, 2001, 08:27:00 AM
<gives lazs a big slobbery kiss...on the cheek of course>


ya my point is that we dont need such accurate bombs because even the biggest target a bomber will attack is VERY small compared to its real world counterpart.. take the city as a keen example...a lone bomber can COMPLETLY destroy the entire city by it self...so there is no need for a mass formation to accomplish a goal...so the idea that we need super accurate tard bombs because we dont have mass formations is thus negated....1 bomber can do the work of 10 because of the size ratio of the targets...giving the the lazer guided bombs FAR FAR FAR over compensates for the lack of mass formations.. the size of the targets already compensates for the lack of mass bombing..the super accurate bombs and idiot proof sights just makes it BORING.
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: BlauK on April 17, 2001, 08:31:00 AM
I simply agree with previous statements  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Revvin on April 17, 2001, 10:20:00 AM
Something I too have suggested on a few occasions. More realsitc effects from the bombs would be all thats needed to take away to over accurate norden sight, as an interim fix why not have a little settling time as in Warbirds.

Lazs> Again you try to turn a post around to suit your own agenda..shame on you! this is not about your tired old whine about 'de-roofing' hangars stopping fighters taking off as with realistic bomb damage carpet bombing with the correct salvo and delay settings would still acomplish this as well as see runways cratered stopping fighters taking off...be careful what you wish for   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Revvin (edited 04-17-2001).]
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Vosper on April 17, 2001, 10:22:00 AM
It's also about immersion, to me.

I can go in low strafing and watch the rounds hitting around the target (immersion).

I take a B26 with 250 lb bombs and put them exactly where I need them (replace the B26 with F-15E's and it could be any currently held Red Flag exercise - not immersion  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)).

It's fun to drop a 4k bomb in the middle of an area and watch multiple buildings blow up (immersion, except for it hitting precisely where I aimed).

It would be great to set salvo to 4, pickle them off, and be able to get an outside view of the bombs wobbling as they descend towards their targets, hitting in the generally close, but not exact, location of my aiming spot (based on altitude over target).

Acks are easy enough to strafe down in a jabo mission that bombers no longer need the accuracy to drop a 100lb bomb at the feet of the ack gunners.  (This could change if the AI for the acks changes to insta-kill vs jabos, but that's something of a different topic).

Cheers
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Kieran on April 17, 2001, 10:29:00 AM
For the sake of the new guys-

Go get 20-30 of your closest friends. Have them all take buffs, and vector to the nearest enemy HQ. Climb to 25K or so, then announce to the enemy you are inbound (if you want to simulate the LW's ability to detect raids at that point). Bring escort if you like. Now, count how many bombers make it to target.

It won't be many.

Here it is: either you want people to be in bombers or you don't. I have taken part in a few raids like the one described above, and they were always one-sided in favor of the fighters. I am primarily a fighter jock, but even I can see that some concession has to be made to the bomber pilots or there will be none.

That may be fine for many people, and that is their opinion. I happen to like having a variety of options available in anything I do.

Lone bombers always die if approached by multiple cons and approached carefully. What we have now is a situation where people choose not to address a bomber threat until it is way too late. A rushed attack on a bomber means a dead fighter. Is that so wrong?
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Pepe on April 17, 2001, 10:52:00 AM
Kieran,

I put in my first post not to touch Buff's Guns. That is the only gameplay concession that is needed.

Having Norden Sights' behaviour closer to reality would not hamper Buff usage, It might improve it.

Replacing pinpoint accuracy with bigger blast radius and durable damage (craters the size the real ones), not only to structures but also runways & plain soil itself would not hamper Buff usage, I bet It will boost it. Is funnier to see big craters where your egg fell, from my point of view.

Please note that I am ready to take the gameplay blow that is the power of current gun set (not only range, but convergence, ability to fire through own plane's surfaces, perfect coordination of all positions, etc.) for the sake of Buffs ability to self-defense alone. But 25k alt nitpicking deacking multiple-pass jinking outmanouvering buffs do not add anything to gameplay, and do not add anything to plain fun for this sim.

I think it is of crucial importance the fact that you CAN NOT buff a field from 20k+
alt without plainly destroying pretty much all of it. If that is the case, the attackers should CAP there for a pretty long time. And air operations for that field should be disabled, as well, for a pretty long time.

If you want to save the field for fast usage, just jabo it, and with small/medium bombs. And better you are accurate, or face runway/ammo/barracks/fuel ruin.

Lone bombers usually die when aproached by multiple cons and approached carefully. More on the same...If the bomber takes the same right approach, and fly on a tight box formation, at the right alt, the end could be different. If they take the right approach (the same as the fighter you mention) you can bet there is close escort. If they plan good, there is close escort and hi cap. And, finally, if they do that, they should not have nitpicking ability. They should bring hell to the poor target below them. But hell for the whole target.

And, after the job is done, the now burning target would not be feasible to land by any means, nor be able to launch any kind of vehicle. For a long time (say 30 minutes). Within that window of time, the base would be captured only by conventional drunk drop, or M3, and the CAP should stay there, for a counterstrike could retake the field with small cost.

I think AH is a wonderful fighter sim, a fun GV game, and a quite boring brain-less buff game. All in all, the best I can buy for my money, but I think there is room for improvement, in particular, in the Bomb compartment   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

Cheers,

Pepe
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Dowding on April 17, 2001, 11:25:00 AM
Pepe - even with the current bomber gun set-up, and flying in a tight bomber formation at 20k you get cut to pieces if unescorted.

Kieren is right.

And furthermore, ask anyone who has flown a buff in the historical scenarios - even with an escort you lose a fair few buffs in the first pass. And none will make it to target after 5 minutes of such attacks. I've seen it over and over again.

A couple of months ago, about 16 Knight B17s took off to attack a field a few sectors behind enemy lines. Only about 3 made it to target and none made it back to base.

I'm for the WBs type of bomb sight, but against making the bombs less accurate at the moment. Changing the number of objects (i.e. increasing the size of the city) is not possible with AH right now. It is limited to 4000 ground targets, I believe.

I'd rather HTC work on fleshing out the planeset and improving aircraft FMs, instead of making changes to the foundations of the game. Because it seems to me that is exactly what would be required if the bombs were made less accurate - otherwise there would be fewer buffs in AH.

Perhaps it could be done in a new version somewhere down the line - who's to say?
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: AKDejaVu on April 17, 2001, 11:26:00 AM
I'm sorry, but this is horse toejam.

Right now, the biggest disadvantage fighters have against bombers is boredome.  Nobody wants to climb to even 15k to engage them.  Nothing you have proposed will fix that.

Most of the supporters of your ideas like it based on the fact that a lone buff doesn't even remotely need to be considered anymore.. afterall.. what can it do?

No... buff accuracy is irrelevant to what is going on in the arena these days.  People are simply getting pissed because a plane they ignored did some critical damage.

AKDejaVu
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: TheWobble on April 17, 2001, 12:46:00 PM
 
Quote
I'd rather HTC work on fleshing out the planeset and improving aircraft FMs

It seems this phrase is said whenever a problem comes up..
watch what you wish for, yer gonna end up with a GAME that has a bunch of planes isnt worth a toejam..


there comes a time when you have to say.." you know what, this sucks..lets fix this before we move on"

adding a bunch more planes is not going to erase things like this, it will only distract SOME people from the for a short time.

You can cry all you want about "gameplay concessions" but there is just a major fundamental problem with a SIMULATION that has something as important as bombs that are as totally crappy as it is now.. lets look at them.

A: they dont respond to wind
B: they dont respond to drag of any kind.
C:the craters are all the same size, no matter the bomb size.
D: they do not drift apart, wobble, disperse or whatever you choose to call it when they are dropped.
E: the bombsight is so PERFECT that it makes bombing about as difficult as clicking on a link.


Sorry to say but flying bombers in ah SUCKS aside from taking off and landing and maby shooting at the occasional fighter  there is NO skill required to bomb anything! there is no THRILL, no CHANCE, no VARIABLES, NOTHING!!  Its no wonder so few people fly bombers, they are so damn boring and predictable all the damn fun has been sucked out of them..

Thats why so many people really liked the arado so much, its speed and RATOS managed to temporarley take their minds off how bad the act of bombing actually sucks in this game.

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-17-2001).]
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Glasses on April 17, 2001, 01:03:00 PM
I agree the current ,model of Buffs is out of balance not only can they make pin-point bomb drops, can re-acquire the target in seconds after evading the enemy,but can also cripple your a/c from an astonishing distance(some say it is needed ,I say sure but, to a lesser degree). Most of the times they're practically unopposed by attacking aircraft,once in a blue moon I get to kill a buff without considerable damage to myself or their intended target.

  As of right now something needs to be put into place to make buffing more of a challenge,than the JDAM setup we have now(sure lone buffs are perfect targets, but who in their right mind would risk their virtual life to attack one,most of the time attacking bombers equal certain death).

------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
Besser tot als rot
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: MiG Eater on April 17, 2001, 01:35:00 PM
Preach on brother Pepe, preach on!

The only other thing I would add to this discussion is to consider removing the ability to control an airplane while sitting in a gun position.  That is a concension to gameplay and in no way simulates the capabilities of a WW2 bomber.

Vosper wrote:
 
Quote
I take a B26 with 250 lb bombs and put them exactly where I need them (replace the B26 with F-15E's and it could be any
              currently held Red Flag exercise - not immersion ).

Well almost, we never have to worry about atmospheric conditions that would break a laser lock on an F-15E's LANTIRN/LITENING system (haze, smoke, clouds) or have the need to maneuver the plane to keep the laser spot on target after dropping.  

MiG
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Hooligan on April 17, 2001, 01:42:00 PM
Unrealistic bomb accuracy for buffs is needed simply because they would be totally useless in the arena without it.  With the current arena design, buffs have to have this or they would be unused.

I personally hate this feature.  

The arena design should be changed to give the buffs suitable targets.  Something very large (so they can hit it) densely packed with targets and ack that is effective up to at least 10K (so that it not a suitable target for attack aircraft).  Perhaps if each country had 10 cities that were densely defended by ack and anti-tank weapons and if these cities never rebuilt except during resets or when the tour rolls over then the strategic bombers would have appropriate strategic targets.

Hooligan
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: LePaul on April 17, 2001, 01:50:00 PM
While you are at this, please see my post on the Bug Reports area about the craters producing no hazzard or damage.

If you want carpet bombing, then the craters need to produce damage.  You can drop all the eggs you want near a GV and he'll just drive through it.  Same if you egg a runway.  Planes go whizzing right through.

If you want realism, ask for it all   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)



------------------
Paul J. Busiere

Aces High Arena handle:  BD5Pilot
 http://bd5.checksix.net (http://bd5.checksix.net)
BD-5 "T" (TurboProp) 90% complete, first flight in 2001 (We hope!)
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Fester' on April 17, 2001, 02:08:00 PM
Im fairly new to this sim, flew it some in the beta, then got busy with real life.  

After reading this thread, Im a bit amazed that anyone would advocate a concession to this degree.  Someone stated there will always be concessions, ie; fuel mixture etc.  But this is significant.

As fighter types we want our planes to be realistically modeled, I wouldnt want to fly a p-47 that performed like a zero for the sake of getting more people to fly it.  Thats rediculous.

Whats being done here is the same thing.  This concession has been made to get fighter types to fly buffs without the hassle of another learning curve.  

Heads up kids, there are buffers out there looking for "Simulation" as well.

If you want inaccuracy, I think AW is still available.  Make this a full faceted SIMULATION.
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Skuzzy on April 17, 2001, 02:36:00 PM
Most people I have seen ask for changes to the bombers are those who rarely fly them.  Not all, but most.

I fly bombers exclusively.  I have a blast in them.  Why?  cause I have a chance to actually be useful to the country I fly for.

I cannot pilot fighters due to my pastel color blindness which makes spotting a plpane below me impossible.
For this same reason I get shot down very easily by fighter planes when I do fly a bomber.

Again, as someone who only flies bombers,..and the goon when needed, to make the chamges you are suggesting to either the guns or the bombing accuracy would pretty much mean I cannot fly in AH any longer.
I would say that most of the time I fly alone, as it is hard to get support from fighters, and even harder to get support fro fighters that know how to fly cover for a bomber.
I know when I take off, I probably will not make it back and feel very lucky if I can drop a couple of bombs.

I really do not understand the complaints.  I get sweaty palms on every flight.  I get really nervous when I am at the Norden, as I know I am completely open for an attack.  And I usually do get attacked when I am there.  I do not want to have to make multiple passes on any given target at a field as I probably would not live long enough to get it done.  I know this flies in the face of reality, but I think the concession is just about as good as it can get, without removing bombers from the game entirely.
Bombers play a very strategic role in the overall gameplay.  How you woul like not to be able to cap a field because your lone bomber missed its targets because of wind drift?  How would you like it if no one would fly those beasts because they were too frustrated with missing thier targets?
I like immersion, and I like to have fun.  Making all the changes, that are in all the threads, to the bombers would make them a non-factor in this game and ruin the fun I have with them and you already have to really reach to be able to enjoy flying a bomber.
The flights are long and tedious.  Take away any protection and take away the accuracy of the norden,...and you will not see many pilots ever flying a bomber.
We are not all pros at flight,...many of you in this thread are very good sticks, but most of us bomber jocks are not that good.  The concession is needed, particulary for us folks that are not that good and need a little help in the air.

Now, that said,..if a lot of bomber pilots get in on this thread and make the same complaints, then I withdraw my assertion and will capitulate to the masses, but I bet a lot of strictly bomber pilots will not post to this thread, much less agree with it.

No offense to any of you.  Like I said, there are some really good sticks in this thread <S>.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: TheWobble on April 17, 2001, 02:46:00 PM
tisk tisk Skuzzy, no wonder you are always harassing people on the open channel, nothing better to do   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

I fly bombers ALMOST 100% of the time, unless we are down to like 3 bases or something, and as i said before they are just TOOO effective..you know EXACTLY where the bombs will hit..you can pick EVERY target and KNOW your going to hit it...it just isnt very fun for very long that way..

some randomness in the bomb patternt would not make bomber ineffective unless they are flying at like 28k plus..and they have no damn business that high anyway IMO,  

simple...add the bomb dispersion and wind drag and the other effects that you fighter folks would DEMAND and simply make the bombs as effective as they should be..as in make it s a 1k egg blowing up 5 feet from a panzer would actually DAMAGE it..

Add the effects of enviroment/wobble/drift.

and increase the blast radius.

then they will be just as effective as they are now, but they will also be REALSITIC..unless you are flying at 35k trying to de-ack a field with a B-17..but IMO you have no business expecting to pull something like that off anyway....

 
Quote
get really nervous when I am at the Norden, as I know I am completely open for an attack
--- The Skuzzmaster

My point exactly...as far as actually dropping bombs goes..there is NO WORRIES..you know exactly where they are going to land even before you drop them..you know exactly which targets are going to hit...there is no element of chance at all..everything the same every time... after a while..thats just not fun anymore..




[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-17-2001).]
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Wanker on April 17, 2001, 03:15:00 PM
Lazs said  
Quote
i agree that the concessions have no place in a sim. they stand out like a sore thumb and at this point, are destrying gameplay as well as immersion.

Thanks Lazs, so you do support getting rid of the AWACS radar that people use to find the nearest furball, and you do support eliminating icons, which makes it easier to find enemy planes.

That's great, we're starting to find more common ground. You know, I agree with you guys. Let's tune down the buff guns to the same levels as the rest of the planes. And let's increase the realism of bombing, adding wind drift, dispersion, etc...

At the same time, we'll:

1. Eliminate AWACS radar. My poor defenseless buff will at least be harder to find.

2. Eliminate icons. See above.

3. Add realistic splash damage and damage repair. A couple of lucky hits on a runway should pretty much prevent the insty-spawn crowd from rolling until the SeaBees can get their equipment out there to repair the bomb craters.

4. Eliminate the need to use 3,000 bombs of bombs to destroy an aluminum hanger. Buff drivers DO deserve to have realistic targets to bomb.

This is good start, fellas, I think both sides are starting to see the value of making the changes suggested above. It's time, as Lazs says, to start getting rid of the things that are ruining gameplay and immersion.

Sure is going to make finding a furball a squeak, though, ain't it?
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Dowding on April 17, 2001, 03:49:00 PM
Wobble - how much work do you reckon it will take to implement accurate bomb modelling with a redesign of the 'chassis' of AH - i.e. the number of targets, target hardness etc -  to make using buffs practical and useful? It's a matter of priorities - one day AH will get a revamp of gameplay, and hopefully bombers will be updated too.

But I would rather see more aircraft with FMs based on the best available data first. How is that moving away from realism?

You can't seem to accept that AH is a game - it's not a true warfare simulator, because such a thing would become tiresome very quickly. With that in mind here are some other articles to add to your 'crusade for realism':

1) You can only fly a buff if you create a mission for a full squadron - one buff attacking a strategic target isn 't 'realistic' is it?

2) All buffs must take off with 100% fuel, because to do otherwise would not be in keeping with real life procedure and hence would be unrealistic.

3) Buff flight times would be increased a couple of hours, to make the experience more 'realistic'.

4) Include random equipment malfunctions, such as engine failure, fuel leaks, radio failure. Might get a little annoying to find after a two hour flight that your bombs won't arm, but hey, it's realistic right?

5) Like banana points out, remove all icons, radar and dot radar.

6) Introduce 'realistic' navigation - you have to manually plot your course and work out your position taking into account windspeed etc. No in flight map.

I fly buffs quite alot too - in fact I play AH in all roles - I find it anything but boring. It's a lot of fun.

But introducing highly accurate bombing models to AH in its current form will render buffs useless.
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: LePaul on April 17, 2001, 03:57:00 PM
 
Quote
Originally posted by banana:

1. Eliminate AWACS radar. My poor defenseless buff will at least be harder to find.

2. Eliminate icons. See above.

3. Add realistic splash damage and damage repair. A couple of lucky hits on a runway should pretty much prevent the insty-spawn crowd from rolling until the SeaBees can get their equipment out there to repair the bomb craters.

4. Eliminate the need to use 3,000 bombs of bombs to destroy an aluminum hanger. Buff drivers DO deserve to have realistic targets to bomb.

This is good start, fellas, I think both sides are starting to see the value of making the changes suggested above. It's time, as Lazs says, to start getting rid of the things that are ruining gameplay and immersion.

Sure is going to make finding a furball a squeak, though, ain't it? [/B]

I don't know who you are, and what side you fly on, but I really like what you've said here.

Point # 1, I agree wholeheartedly on.  I think the fighter guys would be more inclined to even help bomber guys out, knowing a spotted bomber will draw enemy fighters to them.  Let the chat buffer be what radios are in real life, calling in enemy movements.

Point #2 I disagree with, only because its just too much to take away.  I see your point, but I'd sure hate to shoot down a fellow squaddie....its not like the bad guys fly German and you soley fly Allied   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Point #3...man, I've been saying this for a while and very few have chimed in to agree with me.  Why have bombs if they don't do damage?  Asides the blast radius, of course.  You drive into a 20 foot pot hole, yer gonna get hurt   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Point #4...all I can say is "Have any of you seen a WW2 Vintage hangar?"  Or a modern one at the local Air Nation Guard base?  Most of the WW2 fields didnt HAVE hangars, they were outside, much less runways.  You are exactly right, 3000 pounds of bombs to knock in a tin-can hangar is pretty silly.  But so is 70 perk points for an Arado for that matter  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Great post, and fantastic points.



------------------
Paul J. Busiere

Aces High Arena handle:  BD5Pilot
 http://bd5.checksix.net (http://bd5.checksix.net)
BD-5 "T" (TurboProp) 90% complete, first flight in 2001 (We hope!)
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Tac on April 17, 2001, 05:31:00 PM
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001343.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001343.html)
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Pepe on April 18, 2001, 03:03:00 AM
It's not a matter of reducing accuracy per se. It's revamping the bomb damage model. A 1000 pounder should make a quite big crater, not to mention a 4000er. That's the key point. That's why the Buff has not to be so accurate. Blast radius. You substitute the pinpoint bombsight with a bigger damage radius, and raw tonnage drop. And there is the counter....you damage the target A LOT, so it is useless and defenseless for quite a long time after capture.

And, If you happen to drop a 1000er. just by the dreaded osty, the less it can suffer is a flip.

There are 3 important issues that has been raised so far, those that have been raised again and again, and where is some degree of consensus:

* Bomb damage model, and bomb damage consequences.

Craters, Effective damage radius should be revamped.

* Bomb sight.

In terms of accuracy and lack of lineup time, causes the absolutely unreal behaviour of buffs on the run.


* Buff Guns.

I can understand the frustration of the lone attacker, and the whines they are unreally tough. I feel they are quite allright, since toning them down would render a lone buff defenseless. Wether that should be (as it was in RL) or not, It would make Buff missions almost impossible with the actual MA settings. I can live with guns like they actually are. Even more, I would make them even stronger if the norden sight is improved and, thus, navigation is needed to get to a target properly lined. This is the gameplay concession I would allow.

Skuzzy, I can't say I fly buffs a lot. But I am not to blame for that. The model is the one. It has no interest, for me. The typical buff mission is:

a) Take your buff from hangar, as hvy in bombs as you can, and as lite as 25% fuel.

b) Engines on.

c) Firewall Throttle and firmly secure lever there.

d) Turn your buff in a straight line to your target.

e) Go to buff position....wait until target crosses crosshair...no problem if you have to make a 90deg. turn just on arriving...preferably, bank a lot, so you can hit multiple non-aligned targets in a single laser-accurate pass.

It's as fun as Gooning, except Goon has the thrill of Treetop flight.


So, the problem with buff missions, and the reason I do not fly them are:

a) No engine management to maintain interest while climbing.

b) No planning needed to find a proper route that gives the buff the best possible lining on the target.

c) No need to make a buff mission, when jaboing can achieve exactly same goals and have the plus of dogfiting.

d) I CAN'T destroy an airfield. I can't blow the rnwy away, I can't crater the grass so bad nobody can take off. When I'm 20k+ over it, What It's not a matter of structure hitting, It's a matter of tonnage drop. You are aiming the field, or areas of the field. You are not aiming to hit the precise point where the left leg of the ack tripod is lying.

That's my pain. I used to like WB buffs a lot. It involved a whole lot more strategy than here. Unless we can have something similar here, I won't be flying buffs that much. And I miss them   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Cheers,

Pepe
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Montezuma on April 18, 2001, 03:26:00 AM
 
Quote
Originally posted by Fester:
Im fairly new to this sim, flew it some in the beta, then got busy with real life.  

Heads up kids, there are buffers out there looking for "Simulation" as well.

If you want inaccuracy, I think AW is still available.  Make this a full faceted SIMULATION.

Bombing is more difficult in AW than AH.  AW bombs have drift at high alts.

They didn't do it for realism, people just got tired of 30k buff dweebs in the melee arenas.
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: DB603 on April 18, 2001, 03:45:00 AM
S!

 Well...buffs are way too accurate atm because of the above mentioned reasons.Also..even U had the Norden,U just can't see a single AA emplacement from the 25k+ alt!I think the best modeling of bombing is in B17 II,even the game itself sucks in other areas.U really have to take in account the wind drift,speed etc when adjusting and calibrating the Norden.And there's no friggin zoom!Enuf of buffs...I hate them so I kill them wehn they are down from their ultimate 30k.This brings up the FM of them...A Lancaster outmaneuvering a fighter!Every source indicates Lancaster is a HEAVY and BIG plane,that DOES NOT turn on a dime,as in AH.Same is with B17.It is NOT a dogfighter,but a bomber.No 4-engined WW2 buff outmaneuvers a fighter.Period.
 IMO the FM in AH behaves a bit strangely.Planes are quite accurate in climb,speed and roll etc.But the planes still don't feel right.They are more or less "thing on a spring".A question..What does FM in AH take in account and what calculations are made?What is the whole FM based on?Table?Force?Hybrid of these 2?IMO the size of AH quite much restricts the FM modeling,but I can be wrong here.Comments and flames?




------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: flakbait on April 18, 2001, 04:56:00 AM
* Leave the buff guns the way they are.

* If a 500 pound bomb makes a crater 12 feet across and 5 feet deep IRL, it shuld do the same here. I want to see that idiot taking off from a field and run through a crater, sheering off his gear. I want to see a Panzer or half-track get stuck in the crater.

* If bombs dropped from high altitudes drifted some IRL, they should do the same here. Something like:

if(alt.equals) 12,000
then(bomb.disperse) 50

That's feet, not yards. Fighter-bombing is fun for me since I can't hit crap. It's a thrill when I stare at the buffer wondering if I hit anything for a few seconds. I think the same thrill would apply to BUFFs at 20+ thousand feet. Sitting there wondering just how many bombs are gonna blow up an enemy target. I know I'd get a kick out of it.

* Leave the norden the way it is. Bomb scattering at higher altitudes would take care of the GPS/Laser guidance system.


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
 (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: TheWobble on April 18, 2001, 05:45:00 AM
 
Quote
But I would rather see more aircraft with FMs based on the best available data first. How is that moving away from realism?


Thts the thing...to bombers the FM of our bombs has just as much effect on the level of realism AND FUN as the FM of our planes...

Would it be fun to fly a fighter that had really accurate FM but the guns behave totally unrealistic, had no bullet drop, no dispersion every one just went straight ahead in a perfect line and never dropped...would that be fun and realistic to you?? ...NO?...Now you know how we feel.


 
Quote
* Leave the norden the way it is. Bomb scattering at higher altitudes would take care of the GPS/Laser guidance system.

This is what Im ALL for BTW, this EXACTLY

You wont need to fubar the sight if the bombs behave as they should.




[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-18-2001).]
Title: Can't understand why Bomb accuracy is a needed gameplay concession
Post by: Twist on April 18, 2001, 07:38:00 AM
I like what flakbait said, would be a good start, and if you added arming fuzes to prevent carbomb dweebs from sitting on the runway baiting pilots or driving across a base to kill an M3 by dropping their load while taxiing in a last pathetic act of desperation, it would sure keep this old farts happy meter right where it should be.  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)