Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Special Events General => Topic started by: funkedup on May 13, 2002, 10:04:49 PM
-
Why not 1:1 scale maps? 256 x 256 is more than enough room for any air battle in WW2 that involved the numbers of planes we have.
Why do we always have scaled down maps with scaled down units? 8-12 planes (a squadron) pretending to be a Fighter Group, 20 LVTs representing an Army, etc.
It's like simulating the Civil War wit a Rogue Spear pistol duel between Grant and Lee. Grant fires wildly! Lee crouches behind the Applachians. Grant's out of ammo, now he's running for the Rockies. He's behind the Rockies reloading. But HERE COMES Lee. Grant gets the clip in BUT IT'S TOO LATE. Lee scores a head shot, REBELS WIN!!!
What's wrong with recreating an air battle in 1:1 scale both spatially and numerically?
Just wonderin' :)
-
Time, numbers, and preferences, I suspect.
Taking the last first, through most of WW2 there were far more bombers than fighters in action....
With regard to numbers, the scale (number of planes involved) of the action itself comes into it. If we were to try to refight the fiercest parts of the Battle of Britain, for example, we'd need about 2,000 pilots
Time, ah, time... :-)
- for one thing, not many folk are like myself and actually LIKE flying a bomber for three or four hours on a single raid (and some real-life raids lasted more like 10 hours; some ocean patrol planes could stay up for the better part of an entire day, and sometimes did)
- so we limit our action to what can be squeezd into 2-3 hours, say. Which means a maximum of 60-90 minutes flying time to target for bombers, or about 200-300 miles. I can cover 100 miles just climbing to a reasonable altitude...
I like 1:1 terrains myself, but I can see why scaled terrains may be more practical to enable things like bombing raids to Berlin from East Anglia to be staged. I personally think the happy medium lies somewhere in the range 1/2 scale to full scale terrain. I relly dislike having terrain much smaller than that. And I like extensive terrain - my only serious criticism of the new BoB terrain, for instance, is that it would IMO be better if it was bigger across and covered a physically bigger part of the world.
But then, I havent tried building a terrain yet, so bedamned if I'm goin to be too critical until I've had a go myself...
Just my two penn'orth... :-)
Esme
-
Numbers - No need for 2000 planes. There are countless accounts of smaller engagements involving ~100 planes on each side, even during larger battles with thousands of planes involved. Why not use a historical order of battle and simulate those smaller engagements, instead of using absurd unit sizes to re-enact a larger battle that we don't have enough planes for?
Time - If we want shorter missions, there are other ways to accomplish this than shrinking the map and jacking up the fuel multiplier.
No need to simulate long hours of flying to and from target. Let's just simulate the combat itself. Pick the most interesting 2 hours of a typical mission and simulate that part and that part only.
If we want bombers over the Reich, just build a 1:1 map of a target area somewhere in Germany. Add to the 1:1 map some fantasy bomber fields on the western edge, at an altitude of 20,000 feet or so. The bomber fields would be about 1 hour (~200 miles) from the target zone. The map is historical 1:1 map except for the bomber fields. Make the sectors of those fields off limits to Axis pilots and make them well out of Axis radar range. Let the bombers climb in those sectors and then move into the combat area when they are ready.
And with this type of setup there is no need to use an unrealistic fuel multiplier. Estimate how much fuel the bombers would have remaining in real life when they were about 1 hour from their targets, and limit their initial fuel load in the game accordingly.
We don't have to have scenarios that compromise the authenticity of the combat in order to meet a 2 hour time limit and have a clipboard map view that looks pretty. I think it's possible to have authentic combat AND deal with our time and numbers constraints.
-
1:1 maps are viable for SOME engagements: not all. What your proposing is we cut out alot of the freedom abilities for COs.
Let's use your Germany scenario for instance. The Axis already KNOW where they're coming from, with little ability. As the Allied CO, I can only move my bombers to enter into about 5 sectors, where if the whole continent was available, id have about 50. I could enter from Normandy, Calais, Holland, or Norway.
What it does is set up an easy massacre for the bombers. True, scenarios such as that are ALWAYS massacres, but at least the CO had some freedom on where to implant them.
It's really really hard to find battles that had suitable numbers. Hell, it was rare that more than 20-30 planes would hook up at once, except for the notable battles: Midway, Kursk, BoB...
Scenarios wouldnt be scenarios: They'd be bloody re-enactments. 'Today we're going to simulate the battle that 50 Zekes met 50 F6Fs over Guadalcanal. The objective is not to get shot down. Fight'
What your suggesting is more of a TOD. What you sound like you want is EXACTLY what the TOD does.
Scenarios are meant to be a chance to defy history, change the order of battle. If Rommel sent these 100 Stukas in first and got massacred, why do I want to do the same? I'm going to rewrite his plan, and WIN!
Scenarios are not and can never be reenactments, no way-no how. No one would ever fly for the losing side. Hell, we have enough trouble finding bomber pilots, and they KNOW theyre going to die. Scenarios have on objective: WIN. Win at all cost, defy history. Try to lead the Russians into victory over the Germans in Kursk 1. Lead the Germans into the obliteration of the RAF in BoB.
1:1 is viable for some scenarios, ones contained on a small area. Most however, require that we give the other side a shot to choose a different flight path. Otherwise, scenarios become predictable, and bland.
This is of course, all IMO.
-
Let's use your Germany scenario for instance. The Axis already KNOW where they're coming from, with little ability. As the Allied CO, I can only move my bombers to enter into about 5 sectors, where if the whole continent was available, id have about 50. I could enter from Normandy, Calais, Holland, or Norway.
Well most JGs knew bloody well where the bombers were coming from 60 minutes before they made contact.
What it does is set up an easy massacre for the bombers. True, scenarios such as that are ALWAYS massacres, but at least the CO had some freedom on where to implant them.
Well do we want to simulate milk runs or do we want to simulate air combat? If the bombers have no chance then increase the ratio of escorts to interceptors until they have a chance.
It's really really hard to find battles that had suitable numbers. Hell, it was rare that more than 20-30 planes would hook up at once, except for the notable battles: Midway, Kursk, BoB...
There were engagements all over Europe and the Ostfront with such numbers. Hell 30 planes was the MINIMUM size for 8th AF fighter units.
Scenarios are meant to be a chance to defy history, change the order of battle. If Rommel sent these 100 Stukas in first and got massacred, why do I want to do the same? I'm going to rewrite his plan, and WIN!
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think trying to simulate theater-wide decision-making in a 2-hour battle between ~100 pilots on each side is silly. See my Grant vs. Lee analogy.
Why not focus on the actual decisions and tactics that fighter and bomber commanders in the field actually dealt with? There are great opportunities for tactical creativity in that paradigm. How do you think guys like Zemke or Galland or Bader made their names?
But instead we have these theater level scenarios and the focus is on being Rommel or Eisenhower, and the real air tactics of WW2 are ignored. I'm thinking particularly of Big Week, where both sides were so busy trying to be smart that they completely ignored things like creating bomber boxes or Gruppe tactics and Fighter Group tactics.
1:1 is viable for some scenarios, ones contained on a small area. Most however, require that we give the other side a shot to choose a different flight path. Otherwise, scenarios become predictable, and bland.
I don't propose to put any restrictions on flight paths. There can always be multiple start bases and multiple targets in order to get a little bit of a "shell game" effect. Some of the TOD CMs are artists when it comes to that sort of thing.
And remember that I was just talking about 8th AF bomber missions because Esme brought it up. That's probably the least suitable type of mission for 1:1 terrain. If we are talking about a frontal type scenario with close air support, then 1:1 is even more attractive, because there were many areas in WW2 where flying times fell within our 2 hour round trip requirements.
Cheers
Mike
-
Let me get your opinion on this:
How could we do a 1:1 with a battle such as... Midway? In truth, the fleets were so far apart at times, it may turn into a no-sight scenario.
-
Also meant to say this too :)
Oh, and I agree, Fighter/Bomber group decisions are VERY good assets in scenarios. I usually give my GLs when I'm a CO orders that say 'Accomplish this by end of frame.' I leave it up to them to decide how to do it.
By the third frame rolls around, usually the groups are self-dependant on one another, cutting out the CO and XO almost entirely from briefing updates.
I LOVE scenarios like that. It gives more immersion from the GL perspective, and the CO. Instead of a GL radiong back every five minutes "What do I do now?" they can reason from the things around them and they act on that.
It's possible in EVERY scenario. It just depends on rules and the command style of the CO. Some like to micromanage, some like to relax (like me).
-
I would handle Midway by forcing an engagement to happen. I.e. pick the most exciting 2 hours of the Midway battle, set up those initial conditions in the SEA, and see what each side can do with it. That's what I would do if I was a CM instead of a lazy bastard who gives the CMs a hard time. :)
-
Keep in mind Funked that when you are setting up Midway you need to spread it our over 4 frames and keep some sort of objective throughout. If we do it your way the event ends up being one frame.
The reason I like TOD's so much is that there are fewer boundaries and historical aspects that I have to follow. I write up an event with as much research as I have time for and I try to get several different sources.
When it come to the event I start you with a terrain, planset and active fields.
Then I throw the history book away and try and find objectives that are balanced and achievable. It is hard to do this and keep the event immersive and entertaining every Frame.
When you talk about how squads fly do you want more rules, regulations on what squads do? Fly in Vic if you are RAF in 1940, Fly in boxes if you are a bomber?
-
Originally posted by Aub
Let me get your opinion on this:
How could we do a 1:1 with a battle such as... Midway? In truth, the fleets were so far apart at times, it may turn into a no-sight scenario.
Thats what happened some times though, I've been flying TOD's for a while and i've had a few instances where I saw no enemy action.
Of course I got frustrated. But then in other TOD's I've engaged 20+ enemy a/c. And then I'm wishin for a no-action sortie.
That's what makes TOD's GREAT!
-
Skernsk I would just repeat the same great 2 hours each frame. :)
After Frame 2 everybody would switch sides.
I don't want rules about formations and stuff. Just objectives that lend themselves to using some historical unit sizes and tactics, not splitting up all over the map. E.g. if we have 30-40 8th AF fighters they would be flying as a single FG, not forced to spread over 200 miles of airspace by multiple objectives. I guess that might run into 32-plane limit problems though. Doh. :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Skernsk I would just repeat the same great 2 hours each frame. :)
After Frame 2 everybody would switch sides.
Ahh..I see. :)
I don't want rules about formations and stuff. Just objectives that lend themselves to using some historical unit sizes and tactics, not splitting up all over the map. E.g. if we have 30-40 8th AF fighters they would be flying as a single FG, not forced to spread over 200 miles of airspace by multiple objectives. I guess that might run into 32-plane limit problems though. Doh. :)
Exactly the problem Funked. We have already run into problems in both the TOD's and the Big Scenario's. How the event is flown is left up to the individial or the squad CO/XO. I don't know how we could change that, keep thinking though and if you have any ideas let us know.
-
I agree with funked but am unsure how it would work.
In midway I honestly dont see how you can stretch it for 4 frames.
In big week being an axis pilot i would have loved to see formations with the lw gefechtsverband's engaging b17s stacked in boxes. But the focus was placed else where.
As a necessity my squad of 10 (we only mustered 8 most of the time) were split into 4s. Because of the lack of buff formations I had a field day.
How do you order folks to fly formation? how do you enforce it?
I would leave that to the cos. But imho in would be easier to divide up the squads and place them under command of a single guy.
Take bw fer example I would have split the lw up into 3 gefechtsverband's (N center s) each with its own leader and made up of a mix of aircraft. The co would then would vector and direct the gefechtsverband's but allow the leader to direct the attacks.
For the allies I would have grouped the buffs some what the same way.
1 to 1 terrains with a "command structure" (not just a side co) may be worth attempting. But the focus of events should be combat. Not "getting over" or sneaking a point win.
But to have "squadron size flights" we need to have the SEA numbers expanded.
-
The next scenario will be held on the 1:1 ETO terrain. :)
-
The next scenario will be held on the 1:1 ETO terrain.
Cool!
I'll still find something to whine about though!!! :D
-
Just a question/statement sort of type thing: Haven't we avoided trying to have too many planes in close proximity due to the 32 plane visual limit within AH? I know in some of the scenario's, aircraft I was chasing or who were chasing me became invisible. Has the visual limit been increased?
-
Funkedup - that is one of the better ways of dealing with the problems I've seen suggested (you'd need some edge fields at low level, for low-level raiders), but does err towards looking at things from a fighter pilots point of view.
From a bomber pilots point of view, enemy fighters are a bloody nuisance one wants to try to avoid, for preference. Yes, it gets exciting when an attack by fighters comes in, but it's also exciting working out how best to minimise risk from defences, looking out for enemy fighters and hoping to hell you don't see any, checking your position to ensure you havent drifted off course, (and working out what to do if you have). Just surviving flak over target and en-route can be pretty tense...
I'm sure you realise this, Funkedup, but so's we're all on the same page, as it were..... chop things down in size TOO much, and half the skill and fun for bomber pilots is lost, and we will inevitably meet enemy fighters. Fun for the fighters, not so much fun for the bombers. If we go that way, we'll need to find a happy medium which allows the buffs a chance to outwit the defenders, but doesnt make it a nearly impossible task for the defenders to intercept the bombers. Given the visibility range in AH, that shouldnt be too hard, if fighters fly patrols and are directed by radar ops from the ground (we need to do away with clipboard radar whilst flying altogether, IMO)
As for increasing the escort until the buffs can survive - NO! AH and other such sims already suffer from way too many fighter pilots, because bomber flying is either fundamentally not interesting enough or not rewarding enough (or both) in them, due, IMO, to a decided lack of imagination (and quite possibly a lack of understanding of WW2 aerial warfare) amongst some game developers, and an over-concentration on the "glamourous" fighters. Bombers CAN be made interesting and rewarding to fly - heck, the very reason I fly AH now is because AH has the fundamentals, from a bomber pilots point of view, to be much more satisfying to fly than any other smilar game I've seen. And what's more, HTC seems intent on adding even more stuff to make buffing more interesting. Frankly, the price difference didnt matter a damn to me, it's just icing on the cake.
I have NO interest in being one of a handful of buffs amid a swarm of 2-3 squadrons of fighters trying to fend off another 2-3 squadrons from shooting me down. If I am in an escorted buffs situation, I want to be amongst several squadrons of buffs escorted by a couple of squadrons of fighters trying to fend off one or two squadrons of fighters, generally. That's far more realistic, generally (yes, I do know about the raids the RAF did over the channel with a handful of buffs with lots of fighters...)
And I want decently dark night, nights when the moon ISN'T up, and occasionally some really foul (very cloudy) weather, both by day and night, so that sometimes just finding the target is difficult. And I want there to be suitably equipped nightfighters prowling around trying to outwit me and stop me when I fly by night, too.
The essence of serious bomber flying is devoting time and developing skills to outwit the enemy; to try to avoid the defences, and to try to make ones own defensive effort as good as possible under the circumstances, when one encounters opposition. I HOPE that my esteemed fighter colleagues would also like to dispay their skills in flying effective patrols, guided by a good ground organisation. Simply setting it up so that the bombers are practically flung into the laps of the opposing fighters doesn't cut it.
And yes, I know one has to cater to the community one has, in general; but it'd be nice if an effort was made to ween a few more off of the EXPECTATION that every time they takeoff in a fighter that they will see one or more enemy aircraft and get one or more kills. Having flown both bombers and fighters in S3 games in WBs, it was my experience that the few times when one didn't make contact with the enemy made the excitement of the times when one DID all the better. Chiaroscuro - light and shade, a varied diet, not just continual gorging on furballing and buff-bashing. In the long run, it's SO much more fun!
With regard to how people fly in-game; in the S3 games, orders are issued to units by their sides CO, and it is up to each unit CO how they implement them (usually). So KG2 based at Derna gets ordered (a few days before the game) to attack Tobruk along with an Italian bomber Gruppo, with JG26 and an Italian fighter Gruppo for escort. Me and the Italian bomber CO liaise on our plan, sort out the loadouts, route and timings, rendevous point (if we are not flying from the same base), and then start talking to our escorts.
They work out where they will rendevous with us, and make suggestions/objections, and so we end up with an agreed plan for the raid which we communicate to our side CO. Thats the way we did it in the S3's, and it worked well. Or USAF colleagues did the same, and trust me, the better ones were quite capable of flying tight formations of B17s and B24s, and generally did, only the less serious units flew like a rabble. (KG2 often flew very loose, but then, we fly Ju88s, manouverability rather than firepower is our best defence).
It might take time to get enough people to see the advantages of form-flying in buffs and then practice it enough to do it well, but it'll come. Especially if flying buffs becomes more interesting and thus more attractive to more people. :-)
Esme
-
Sundog you are right about the 32 plane stuff. I think some of the things I propose would run into problems there.
Esme I understand what you are saying I think.
I guess I just want to simulate those bomber missions where the bombers did meet fighters, instead of simulating a typical bomber mission where you may or may not be engaged heavily. The days that the interceptors did find the fighters, those are the famous days that people write books about.
So in the 8th AF vs. Jagdwaffe context, I would make it so the interceptors are almost certain to find the bombers. What decides the scenario would then be how well the interceptor Gruppe leaders and GCI are able to coordinate their assets to hit the bombers, how well the escort Group leaders are able to position and coordinate their squadrons to break up attacks, and how well the bombers are able to use formations and gunnery skills to lessen the effectiveness of those interceptors who break through, and finally how well the lead bombardiers are able to put tonnage on target.
Those are the types of skills I would like to see a focus on in scenarios. Because they are the skills which decided the great air battles of WW2. It's not just furballing and buff-bashing, not if people take the time to learn the subtleties of tactical flying used by Groups and Gruppen and Wings and Jagdgeschwadern. I don't know if it's technically feasible (due 32-plane limit and other things that a non-CM doesn't know about), and I don't know if everybody else would find it fun, but it's my $2.00E-02. :)
-
PS I think you might see what I mean when you get more AH scenarios under your belt. In Big Week or Sicily or most TODs we generally have ended up with units broken up to hit scattered targets all over the map. Group/Gruppe tactics are almost never used because there are so many targets to hit and defend. Success boils down to whose bombers are the sneakiest and most scattered, and whose fighters are the best at searching a wide area to find bombers. I'm sure those skills were important in some theaters, but in the ETO there was plenty of radar coverage and it was more a question of how well you could attack the bombers once you found them, rather than how good/lucky you were at finding the bombers.
I'm sure the 32 plane limit has a lot to do with this. Designers are forced to scatter units in order to stay under the limit. I guess my desires are clashing with reality here. So maybe look at all my statements as what we should do in an ideal situation vs. what we can actually do given existing tools.
-
Hey Funked I am working on the next TOD at the moment and it is called The Mighty Eighth. I would like to simulate the situation you are describing.
I am worried about the 32 plane limit because I have 150 pilots total and cannot group them all up. What we normally do is create 3 different objectives that allow us to spread the action out.
In this situation I have groups of bombers, the escort and of course the LW. I need to find a way to create what you are asking for and not get too many pilots in the same area. Wish me luck :)
And always remember. As a CM we give you the planes and the sandbox to play in, the squad CO's do all planning and decide how the Frame is flown.
-
Most of the snapshots and in Big week where there were escorts and bombers rarely did I ever see where the bombers flew in a tight enough formation that allowed the escorts to affectively do there job.
Even in rl the allies, once they had the planes, sent out fighters to break up the lw gefechtsverband's before they made contact with the bombers. The bombers, even when escorted, were always vulnerable to attack. The lw would attack sections of the bomber groups where the escort was thin. This got harder and harder. But there are plenty of occassions late in the war where the lw had success against buffs. On lots of occassions the little friends (escorts) got to the lw after the had made there 1st pass.
Buffs fly groups of 16
arranged so
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/buff/FormHead.jpg)
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/buff/FormSide.jpg)
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/buff/FormTop.jpg)
We all know theres no way to enforce a "formation rule". But in scenarios and tods you could set flights to be lrad by a flight leader.
For instance in the upcoming tod you described.
I would reduce the number of buffs per flight to 12 (in tod when dont really have enough folks for 3 flights of 16). I would have 3 flights of buffs.
I would divide the rest up into close escort and fighter sweep sections. I would place the escorts under the command of the buff flight leaders. I would use the same type of targeting system you use now (primary, secondary, alternate)
If you wanted the 3 buff flights to represent 1 large formation or raid you could have them still grouped in 12s but space the flights out where the close escorts could still cover them all. In ah its a 64 plane afaik and by spacing the 3 flights out this would reduce that problem atleast for tod. This would be more true to "real life" where the escorts actually patrolled around the formations.
-
part 2
the lw I would split into 3 gefechtsverband's and 1 flight of free roaming 109s.
The free roaming 109s would be recon or tasked with intercepting the allied forward fighter sweep while the 3 gefechtsverband's form up.
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/buff/sturm.jpg)
The gefechtsverband's were made up with a mix of aircraft. Basically top cover, close escort and sturmbocks.
I am not sure of the year in which your 8th airforce tod is to take place. What i would do is delay the gefechtsverband's from upping until xx time. I would allow the free roaming 109s up at roll. The gefechtsverband's would form up at a given point and attack.
In Big Week the first 2 frames from my perspective were really just a spread out gaggle of individual b17s that really had no chance of being protected by the escorts. The axis co basically sent all the lw squads out as independent units and we attacked piece meal.
In the last 2 frames the allies got together. Their formations were realitively solid. On the lw side we still acted as indepedent squads. So in my a8 squadron i split us into 2 seperate 4 man units. We couldnt rely on 109s covering us. So i broke us up which proved effective. In the last frames one of my 4 man units were able to tie up (with the help of others) some of the escorts while the other 4 man unit headed right into the buffs.
I have been thinking recently about midnights post on the tod forum wher he suggested that squads be given a choice of which plane type they wanna fly. I was against it. But I had thought that it might actually be good for tod if we think about allowing squads not only to chose their plane type but actually allowing squads to choose their side. This will build a greater level of competion. However in would change the flavor of tods. I dont know how that would go over.
The way i had it figured was you have a list of registred axis squads and then sub-categories for axis fighter and bombers. The same for the allies. But we all know there isn't that many dedicted axis squads out there. But out of this a "structure" would develope where pride and the healthy competion will lead to better tactics, formations.
just mho sorry for the rambling :)
-
Thanks for the input Wotan. It might be a good idea to set up flights, but once again that is more up to the CO than me. I have a few ideas that might work.
As for squads picking their rides, that would be okay some of the time, but it would be impossible to please everybody ALL the time doing that. We built into the TOD and as CM's we know that if a P51 is mentioned Midnight's guys are ALLIED, if a P47 is around Ammo's guys get ALLIED. But, we don't hogtie the CO's too much and if they need the squad to fly a Buff rather than a P51 we are not going to get into it.
-
I think the 32 plane limit is the big problem. I was watching some Big Week films and the system was overloaded. Due to the limit and the "3k warp" the interceptors were sometimes visible only as dots until they were in firing range. And I'm sure the same happened with escorts bouncing interceptors who were in the bomber stream.
So I guess this whole thread is me asking for something that's not technically possible. What else is new. :)
all
-
how will 1.10 affect the 32 plane limit? Will 18 B-17s in a box count as 18 planes, or 6? If the latter, you can space out buff boxes a few miles apart. In the vicinity of each box, that would leave 26 planes that could be drawn on your FE. Enough for a full allied fighter squadron and a staffel of LW interceptors. There's still going to be instances where more than one squadron from each side finds its way in to the same area and numbers will push well above 32, but 1.10 has the potential to make large scale engagements a little more doable.
-
Sancho good point. I'm pretty sure the 32-plane limit represents a bandwidth constraint. It's really a limit on how many planes get high frequency updates on position, attitude, damage state, weapons state, etc.
If the position/attitude data for the AI bombers can be derived from the information for the human lead bomber, then I think your prediction will come true. But if the host has to send individual updates for each AI bomber in addition to the lead bomber, then the current constraints will still apply.
-
Sancho, a little bird told us that a buff driver controlling a formation of three buffs will count as "1", not "3" in regard to the 32 plane limit.
-
"Scenarios are meant to be a chance to defy history, change the order of battle. If Rommel sent these 100 Stukas in first and got massacred, why do I want to do the same? I'm going to rewrite his plan, and WIN! "
This, I guarentee, will haunt you, Aub :)
Nice post, Wotan.
-
Originally posted by banana
Sancho, a little bird told us that a buff driver controlling a formation of three buffs will count as "1", not "3" in regard to the 32 plane limit.
WTG guys on a great thread.
banana, in pyro's post on the new bomber system I took it that it is possible to separate individual buffs from the group if the AI bombers couldn't keep in formation with the lead, e.g. the lead makes hard frequent turns. If this is so, it would require either a separate positional update for each of the three buffs or at least some kind of positional offset. This might be a problem. I'm sure HTC has this one covered. AT least I hope so.
Gremlin.
-
banana, in pyro's post on the new bomber system I took it that it is possible to separate individual buffs from the group if the AI bombers couldn't keep in formation with the lead, e.g. the lead makes hard frequent turns. If this is so, it would require either a separate positional update for each of the three buffs or at least some kind of positional offset. This might be a problem. I'm sure HTC has this one covered. AT least I hope so.
Beats me, Gremlin. My little birdie didn't tell me everything. ;)