Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: dtango on August 06, 2002, 03:03:45 PM
-
I just wanted to pull a few nuggets from other threads and also focus in on a single proposal that I thought had a lot of merit that Hooligan and a few others pointed out. Sorry for not giving anyone else credit but Hooligan's comments stuck out to me so I'll just label it that way :).
KEY LEVEL BOMBING GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
Summarizing nuggets and thoughts from other posts this is a list of what I believe are the key principles that should guide the employment of level bombers in the MA:
[list=1]
- Immediate impact as a result of level bombing
- Providing a role for level bombers suited to their capabilities (e.g. carpet bombing etc.)
- Fit within the MA gameplay ecosystem without adversely impacting the natural balance
In my opinion a reasonable use for level bombers should be designed to these parameters. It is true that you can't always satisfy everyone but I think if you designed to the above you would have reasonable success in providing the right balance for the vast majority of players in MA ecosystem of different styles of gameplay.
FOOTNOTES TO GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
- #1 and #2 above in my opinion are the primary factors contributing to the enjoyment of level bombing. Infact I believe much of the ire with 1.10 bombing changes are related to the increased difficulty or reduction in #1 and #2 with the new bombing model.
- Specific details of implementation might vary from one idea to another but I think in general the 3 pinciples need to be satisfied regardless of the implementation if it is going to be successful.
- My opinion on the popularity and success of the MA is due to the fact that it is a diverse gameplay ecosystem that feeds off of itself and is in pretty much of a balance regarding different styles of gameplay.
- In the MA ecosystem, I think an important point is that each of the different "species" of gameplay styles feed off of and need each other which creates the critical mass of players in the arena and specifically the various battlefronts. Separating these species would cause a breakdown in the ecosystem and in my opinion an unwise thing to do. Equally unwise is to give one species in the ecosystem the ability to adversely impact the existence of another species.
THE HOOLIGAN BOMBER PROPOSAL:
I really like the idea that I'm attributing to Hooligan. The proposal is essentially allowing strategic target destruction to directly impact the victory/defeat conditions in the MA war.
Specifically...
[list=1]
- Change the defeat equation to: Defeat = # of fields left + % of country's strat targets destroyed. Defeat conditions can be dynamic in the sense that the "defeat" value can be reached by different permutations of fields left + % of strat destroyed.
- Conversely the country with the most fields and the highest number of accumulated strategic target destruction points is declared the winner.
- Making strategic targets various sizes (like air fields) so that various sizes of bombers formations can participate in achieving victory conditions.
- No change in existing bombing model using formations and carpet bombing
- No changes to the existing strat model affecting rebuild and resupply times etc.
My opinion is that Hooligan's general premise is a pretty elegant modification to the gameplay in the MA. It satisfies all 3 guiding principles above. Level bombers are given immediate feedback and results for their bombing. A role for level bombers is carved out that matches their capabilities for destroying strategic targets. The balance of lifeforms in the MA ecosystem is not adversely affected.
My opinion on the deficiency in the current strat model for bombing is the lack of immediate and direct impact to the MA war for hitting strat targets. Save for disabling country radar in my opinion the other strat variables such as rebuild, and resupply times etc. didn't provide enough immediate feedback for bombing. The laser guided bombing of fields provided a role for level bombers that provided immediate impact albeit sometimes to the chagrin of other styles of gameplay. However once the laser guided bombing disappeared we are left with the ire of the level bomber crowd since their efforts are only indirectely related.
Anyhow, I thought there was a good idea that might have gotten lost in all the flurry of discussion I wanted to bring back up.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
My definition of "immediate and direct impact" is: my actions result in someone, somewhere, cursing in the language of his choice. Bombing for points doesn't qualify. YMMV.
-
i think tango is a tech manual writer
-
Popye- what about bombing to win a reset without having to take all the fields?
John9001- actually I'm not :D. I'm not sure how to take your remark though- as a complement or as an insult :D.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Sorry, but I think any idea that gives bombers a completely separate and unrelated sandbox to play in is a bad thing. That's all this does. The bombers would have no actually effect on the war, they'd simply be given a magic "we win now" button.
I would never fly bombers in that environment as they would be completely unlinked from the rest of the game.
What it comes down to is this:
The journey is the fun part, the destination is just the incindental end of the journey. Giving bombers the ability to bypass the journey and just get to the destination does not make them fun. It makes them boring.
-
tango , when i started to read your first post i got the same feeling i get when reading tech manuals, >>>>pragraph A refers to sec 2 of 3rd paragraph except if subsec 4 of para 1 applies<<<< then my eyes glaze over , i get a headach
-
To many (most?) players, winning the war means nothing. So, bombing only to hasten a non-event would have little interest for those players. Might as well have fighters shooting at target drones to get enough points to "win the war". We play a multiplayer online game to intereact with the other players -- "immediately and directly".
-
hmm karnak and pop.. not sure I understand your premis. Are you admitting that no one will play with the bombers if they don't have to? I mean.. No one want's to attack them and they are no fun to "fight" so you want them to be so obnoxious (which they were) that people are forced to deal with em? How is that not making them a seperate (and despised) element of the game? They would become like in pre 1.10 the only element that could have a huge effect on dozens of players. fighters have to earn every kill and a kill does not effect the fitghter war or war at all.
lazs
-
My premise:
People play a multiplayer online game to directly interact with other players.
HTC's stated gameplay design is: "Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High".
Players are free to ignore or pursue the objective of territory capture, but tacitly accept it by selecting the Main Arena environment to play.
HTC has included player-controlled fighters, bombers, ships, ground vehicles, and gun emplacements in the game, to be used at players' discretion.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm karnak and pop.. not sure I understand your premis. Are you admitting that no one will play with the bombers if they don't have to? I mean.. No one want's to attack them and they are no fun to "fight" so you want them to be so obnoxious (which they were) that people are forced to deal with em? How is that not making them a seperate (and despised) element of the game? They would become like in pre 1.10 the only element that could have a huge effect on dozens of players. fighters have to earn every kill and a kill does not effect the fitghter war or war at all.
lazs
Bombers aren't the real enemy, Lazs. Not if we use you're logic and criteria for assesing worth to MA enjoyment. If you want to single out the most evily impactful unit in the game, one where a single player can impact the activities of dozens of other pilots in the literal blink of an eye, then draw a bullseye around...the C-47. Even in pre-1.10, a single bomber could not, in general, completely shutdown a field...even the mighty Lancaster. Indeed, even back then the effects of bombing were temporary, and could be reversed to a certain extent by friendly supply drops. A Goony Bird, on the other hand only needs to fly straight and level over a field-town and push a button to completely deny the field's owners use of that field. How easy and skill-less is that? They can also swoop in and undue the work of numerous JABO's by dropping supplies and rebuilding the fields in a fraction of the time it would otherwise take. That's it! It's the Goons! The Goon is the real enemy of furballers and the MA! GET RID OF THE GOONS!!!
What? Goons are okay, you say? Being slow and completely unarmed, they are rediculously easy to kill, making them even less challanging (theoretically) to kill than bombers. Yet kill them we do, and with more relish and satisfaction than any other airborne target. Whether defending a base under attack, or in the last stages of prepping a base for capture, the appearance of an enemy Goon will make almost any fighter pilot forget the enemy fighter he's saddled up on and break low for that C-47. And he'll likely be racing a half dozen fellow countrymen for the "honor" of killing that glorified delivery van. Again I ask you, why? We almost never hear the furball crowd decrying the presence and horrendous impact of C-47's, yet let a bomber pilot ask for a larger role in the MA and you guys are all over him like ugly on an ape (for any apes out there, I meant that in the nicest way;)).
The answer to "Why?" is simply this: We kill them because if we don't they will have an immediate and negative impact on the battle we're waging over a base. In plain language, we kill them because we have to! That's what the bomber pilots want...an immediate and decernable impact on the fighting. Once upon a time, a cloud of buffs heading for the HQ resulted in an immediate defensive response, because to let them hit the HQ would cause immediate loss of radar coverage. Even more contested were strikes against the city, because they increased the effect of follow-on strikes against the HQ. Killing bombers took more time than killing a goon, but was at least worth doing.
I personnaly enjoy killing bombers. Not as much as killing an enemy fighter or goon, but it can be challanging nonetheless. They're easy enough to kill if you have plenty of time to set up the attack, but if you're hurridly trying to get them before they drop their bombs it can certainly get hairy.
No solution is going to be met with complete joy by both camps. However, I think we can find a way to make bombers more impactful without ticking off the furballers too much. First, reduce the impact of guns on structures, such that they are almost impossible to destroy with fighter-calibre guns alone. Adjust the size (number of structures and footprint) of field towns such that it takes perhaps two players in tri-formations of heavy bombers to destroy a town, but takes four or five of even the heaviest JABO's to do the same. Finally, and most controversial, make field supplies dependent on a steady flow of supplies from the factories. Cut off that supply line, either by hitting the factories or killing the convoys (gives JABO's another role, too), and you cause a gradual reduction of fuel/A2G ordnance/troops/AAA/etc available at that field.
Mind you, it must always be possible to take off with a minimum of 25% fuel and ample gun ammo (if the hangers are up), just as it is now. In other words, bombing of supply lines and supply sources can't prevent you from defending your fields...only from using them as offensive bases. Likewise, allow supply drops to temporarily restore supplies at fields. The implemenation of strat-zones limits the affect of hitting strat targets to only the fields in that zone, so this will not have global consequences as it once would. My two cents worth.
P.S. It was interesting to finally meet Lazs in person...he's actually a nice guy...he just enjoys a bit too much getting other peoples' panties in a wad on the BBS. His evil twin only emerges when he types, I guess:D.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
What? Goons are okay, you say? Being slow and completely unarmed, they are rediculously easy to kill, making them even less challanging (theoretically) to kill than bombers.
I think the reason pre-1.10 buffs bothered me more than goons, fighters or jabos, was that they were the only ones that could do serious damage, while remaining effectively out of harm's way.
At 30K or more, bombers in Aces High face very few risks. Before 1.10, in exchange for this high-altitude sanctuary, bombers had to trade nothing. They could fly in the thin air where they outclassed almost all fighters, with no loss of offensive effectiveness. They could make hard turns to put an attacking fighter on their 6 without destroying the inherent accuracy of their bombsight.
Now, I think, bombers have to make the same safety-vs-effectiveness tradeoff that the jabos, goons, and fighter pilots have to make. I think there should be targets that can be effectively hit from high altitude, but I don't think fields should be among them (HQ and the city should be, though.) If bomber pilots want an immediate impact at a tactical level, let them fly down here with the rest of us.
-
I think the reason pre-1.10 buffs bothered me more than goons, fighters or jabos, was that they were the only ones that could do serious damage, while remaining effectively out of harm's way.
Excellent observation, Runny. I agree, and believe it further strengthens my argument. Note that I'm not advocating giving bombers their laser accuracy back. Even against towns and strat targets, bombers are forced to either bring more buddies with them, or come down to lower altitude. Since their risk has gone up, it stands to reason their reward for success should too.
Sabre
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Excellent observation, Runny. I agree, and believe it further strengthens my argument. Note that I'm not advocating giving bombers their laser accuracy back. Even against towns and strat targets, bombers are forced to either bring more buddies with them, or come down to lower altitude. Since their risk has gone up, it stands to reason their reward for success should too.
Sabre
Actually, I kind of liked your idea. Forgot to mention that.
-
.. or is a lot of this conversation powered by the obvious animus between the bomber and fighter camps?
I liked Tango's initial message, especially because it invited intelligent dialogue aimed at restoring a useful role to level bombers in the MA, which everyone has to admit no longer exists.
Many of the responses from the Fighter Camp (FC) to his message seem to be driven by the following presuppostions:
1) Level bombers were too powerful prior to the 1.10 patch. Their bombs were too accurate and their guns were too powerful vs. our fighters.
2) Only talentless dweebs fly level bombers because they can't master the fighter
3) As far as bombers are concerned; good riddance to bad rubbish, leave 'em as they are. We'll oppose any suggestion that restores real power to them.
So bombers in AH have gone from being relatively important, to nothing but a curiousity ride (I see more FM2s airborne than Level bombers these days).
Admittedly, many of us in the BC really enjoyed bombers, and yup some of will never have the skills necessary to master fighters - the same was the case in the real war where men were directed according to their proclivities into bombers or fighters.
Arguing that any attempt at giving bombers a real role in the game again will add an imbalance ignores the essential fact that as of 1.10 the game is grievously imbalanced. Just check the hard stats - hardly anyone flies bombers anymore and their impact on the game is now non-existent. For a game that prides itself on historical accuracy that's a real problem. For instance, in WW2:
* Several countries (ex. Holland and Poland) surrendered as a result of the level bombing of cities - or the threat of level bombing
* The German war effort was ultimately crippled by level bombing attacks on their oil production and refining centers. Albert Speer called the Strategic Bombing of Germany "the third front".
* Level Bombers tactically deployed had an enormous effect in preparing for offensives and cutting off enemy reinforcements
* England would have LOST the BoB had the germans continued to deploy level bombers against her airfields.
So for a moment can we set aside the fighter jock vs. bomber dweeb hostility and see if we can't provide a role for multi-engine aircraft (other than the P38 and C47) that addresses the EXISTING IMBALANCES
Thanks for your consideration,
Seagoon
-
IMO, the role of level bombers in the MA should be determined by gameplay considerations. I don't think "historical accuracy" applies to the roles of fighters, ships, or ground vehicles in the MA -- I can't see why it should apply to bombers.
-
Nooooo.... you are all not listening... I have no problem with bombers impact on winning the war. What the bomber guys want tho, is to impact dozens of fighters at one time and in one sortie. They want to do it by denying the ability for fighters to even take off.
I did not create the seperate nature of bombers and fighters. It is historic and the nature of the beasts. they don't have the same abilities nor they do they require the same skills. They can't really be forced to "mix"..
It is perfectly acceptable if there is some voluntary mix.. Say... someone is concerened with "winning the war" (and the amount of "missuns" lately point to the fact that many probly are)... Those concerned with the war effort will try to prevent the bombers from killing the area bombing target.... They will intercept and thus mix..
forced mixing causes animosity of the worst sort. Gameplay imbalance at the worst and lack of respect at best. I offer all of these threads as proof.
If you wish to impact gameplay for dozens of players at a pop with very little effort then you have no right to complain about the animosity.... you can try to maintain your unfair advantage or attention getter but don't get upset when you are given no respect and/or people are lobbying to take some of the power from you.
I don't really say good riddance to bombers so much as I say good riddance to bombers who's sole purpose is to affect fighters.
lazs
-
Lazs,
I'm wondering if you can flesh your reply out a little. You seem to be saying that 1 Lanc pilot has no inherent right to destroy most of the fighter hangers at a base, but that 3 Jabo pilots do.
I'm not sure that I understand this "no mixing" concept, if we grant it, then shouldn't 1 fighter pilot vulching a base have no right to deny a bomber the right to take off?
What in your mind are the gameplay "rights" of bombers and fighters? Could you spell them out a little. Also, to what extent do you feel strategic elements be allowed to affect the game? At this point it doesn't seem like you allow for much at all.
I just want to understand what you're getting at.
- Seagoon
-
Excellent questions, Seagoon. Lazs:
Nooooo.... you are all not listening... I have no problem with bombers impact on winning the war. What the bomber guys want tho, is to impact dozens of fighters at one time and in one sortie. They want to do it by denying the ability for fighters to even take off.
But...don't we currently "win" the war by taking bases? And isn't the key to taking bases achieving air superiority over those bases? And don't we do that by both shooting enemy planes down and preventing their launch by killing hangers? So it's okay for a Jabo pilot to do this, but not a bomber?
I did not create the seperate nature of bombers and fighters. It is historic and the nature of the beasts. they don't have the same abilities nor they do they require the same skills. They can't really be forced to "mix"..
At the risk of sounding critical of your historical prowess...huh? RAF Fighter Command was specifically created to "mix" with the bombers...the Luftwaffe kind. Primary target of the 8th AF was the Luftwaffe. The B-17 and the B-24 were built with an eye towards going toe to toe with the Luftwaffe fighters and winning. I won't argue your point regarding abilities or skill, but your comment about them not mixing is hogsswallow (pardon my French).
It is perfectly acceptable if there is some voluntary mix.. Say... someone is concerened with "winning the war" (and the amount of "missuns" lately point to the fact that many probly are)... Those concerned with the war effort will try to prevent the bombers from killing the area bombing target.... They will intercept and thus mix..
Voluntary mix? You mean like, "Bombers in this area by invitation only!"??? Who wants to limit who's fun? I do believe if you'ld look again at all those posts you'll note that most bomber advocates are only asking for a way to impact that war effort...primarily by increasing the impact of strategic bombing. They would also like a direct role in base capture, but is that so wrong? Few are asking for the abilty of a single bomber pilot to laser (or "lazser"?) kill every field target from 30K. What they do want is to have targets worth the time and effort to bomb. Right now they don't really exist on a strategic or tactical level. They used to, but now they don't.
forced mixing causes animosity of the worst sort. Gameplay imbalance at the worst and lack of respect at best. I offer all of these threads as proof.
I've seen very few if any instances of bomber pilots calling fighter pilots talentless fluffers or other disparaging terms. Personally, I love to look around from my cockpit (a tiny fighter one or a big roomy bomber one) and see all different types of airplanes out there. As for imbalance, it has been pointed out above that right now the imbalance all appears to be in favor of the furballing fighters. Guess it depends on your definition of "imbalance."
If you wish to impact gameplay for dozens of players at a pop with very little effort then you have no right to complain about the animosity.... you can try to maintain your unfair advantage or attention getter but don't get upset when you are given no respect and/or people are lobbying to take some of the power from you.
The Goon, Lazs, think of the Goon. It does just that, but I don't see very many asking for it's bannishment to it's own corner of the MA, where it can fly slow in circles and drop troops on a big bullseye painted on the ground to it's heart's content without punishing all those fighter pilots by denying them a base of operations just when the fight was getting good. Unfair advantage? Exactly what would that unfair advantage be in the MA of version 1.10?
I don't really say good riddance to bombers so much as I say good riddance to bombers who's sole purpose is to affect fighters.
lazs
Fighters and bombers have a symbiotic relationship...they are the Ying and Yang. Like Good and Evil, one has no true reason to exist without the other. "Chant with me now...bombaswannakillsdafight as, fightaswannakillsdabombas."
-
Lazs,
You are the only one stating that bomber pilots want to, with a single player, be able to massively affect dozens of other players.
Sabre's idea in this thread, and my idea posted in two other threads, both focused on giving bombers strategic targets that had a real impact on the war without giving bombers the ability to completely stop fighter ops from any field without using many players and simply carpet bombing the airfield into oblivion, say 6-9 players each with 3 Lancs.
Your response to our suggestions has been to say that we simply want bombers to be able to easily pork fighter ops. This is simply not so.
Against my idea you even went out and stated that it would cause milk running, though I haven't the faintest idea how it could do that any more than the current system.
There is a possible problem coming with the introduction of the Me163 as well. The only strategic target worth hitting is the HQ. The ability of C-47s to fix it greatly reduced the value of hitting the HQ. The new bombsight makes it much harder to get 20,000lbs on that small of a target. The changes to bomber guns and durability make it much harder to reach the HQ. It has be claimed by some players, though not verified by HTC, that the Me163 will be a free aircraft launching from the HQ, or from the bases around the HQ. If this is true it will give defending players a unit that can nullify in one or two minutes all of the altitude that the bomber pilots spent half an hour getting. If this is true it might well make the HQ, particularly with the other bomber changes since 1.10, an essentially untouchable target.
I strongly feel that C-47s, M-3s and LTV2s should not be able to resuply strategic targets. Strategic targets build aircraft, vehicles and supply bases, not the other way around. A sinlge C-47 pilot can undo the work of 10 bomber pilots before their bombers have even landed.
For the record, I may sound very pro-bomber, but I fly fighters 95% of the time. I enjoy hunting bombers. I enjoy hunting fighters. I enjoy hunting GVs. They are all challenging, but in different ways. I advocate these changes to the gameplay because I think it would make for a richer, more enjoyable game environment, not because I want to pork FHs with bombers or ruin anyone's fun.
-
"Lazs,
I'm wondering if you can flesh your reply out a little. You seem to be saying that 1 Lanc pilot has no inherent right to destroy most of the fighter hangers at a base, but that 3 Jabo pilots do. "
YES.. that is what I am saying. I am saying that if fighter operations can be shut down by killing a couple of carports then... yes.. A level bomber, with one talentless buss driver, should be incapable of hitting such a small target but 3 individuals flying jabo at low alt should be able to take out said targets. I am saying that is realistic AND fair... If you don't like it then change the targets and/or their worth.
sabre... yeah... the B17's really were "flying fortresses" eh? they didn't need all that silly fighter escort because of their design? IMO.. and many others .. the big role of bombers in WWII against fighters was to draw the LW up so that Fighters could fight fighters. It forced the LW to fight our fighters... don't see how we can duplicate that (in the MA at least).
And yes... we currently "win the war" by taking bases. So long as that is the case I see no way to integrate level bombing in a realistic way. We need to have area targets for area bombers or get rid of the bombers. Or.. the bombers shuld be happy with historical accuracy just as they were in the pacific.
voluntary mix means that... if fighters had a reason to attack bombers that made sense then.... there would be voluntary mix. I know you can grasp that concept.. If you wish to keep your country from "losing the war" you will hit the bombers on their way to the area targets.
and... much as I sympathize with your desire to "look around and see all types of ac".... I'm not playing so that you can live in diversity. If that's all you want then put a bunch of Ai up.
And karnak.... to destroy a countries capability to fly from a field that they still own or... to not be able to leave a 25% tether doesn't seem like a good plan for MA play where many are only on for an hour or so IMO. it creates a situation where you are essentially unable to find a fight. That may seem simplistic to you but many are in it for the simple fight. If we can allow fights to continue but strat guys to effect the outcome of the war... then isn't everyone getting what they want..
basically the fluffers are saying that "the **** have won the war" is not enough reward or... that it is not what they are flying for.. What they want is what the fighter guys want... they want to piss off somebody. Difference being.... I can only piss off one at a time and I gotta earn it in a fighter.
sabre said... "The answer to "Why?" is simply this: We kill them because if we don't they will have an immediate and negative impact on the battle we're waging over a base. In plain language, we kill them because we have to! That's what the bomber pilots want...an immediate and decernable impact on the fighting"
Yep.... they want to force people to play with them and they want an immediate affect on the "fighting" The fighting? This seems to admit that they are not a part of the fighting. I think it is obvious that by "an immediate and decernable impact on the fighting" it is meant that they impact fighters. this is lousy history and lousy gameplay.
At the risk of correcting sabre again....It still boils down to something more like parasite than sybiotic. The fluffs need the fighters.. their lives are defined by the fighters and they want only to participate in the fighter war. If they can't accept anything less than that unless it is voluntary then they will be unhappy or... they will make everyone else unhappy.
lazs
-
At the risk of correcting sabre again....It still boils down to something more like parasite than sybiotic. The fluffs need the fighters.. their lives are defined by the fighters and they want only to participate in the fighter war. If they can't accept anything less than that unless it is voluntary then they will be unhappy or... they will make everyone else unhappy.
At the risk of pointing out your hypocrisy again, lasz, what it boils down to is that, prior to 1.10, the bomber pilots had a noticeable effect on the play of the game; one or two bomber pilots could shut down a field so that a small group of fighters could clear the AAA for a goon to come in to capture the field. This meant that you had to tear yourself away from your furball when you saw a bomber coming in, because it was a threat to your being able to keep furballing.
The 1.10 release basically castrated bombers; even with the addition of bomber formations, it's functionally impossible for level bombers to be a serious threat to anything but a minor field, and the strat system is so broken that you can ignore attacks against them, too. So you're freed from having to worry about bombers approaching, because you know that they can't do anything to hurt you. And when the people who used to bomb regularly complain about their game play suddenly becoming marginalized, you prate on about how the 'fluffers' never had any realeffect on fighter operations (carefully ignoring how badly RAF Fighter Command was getting wasted by the Luftwaffe until Hitler went stupid and ordered the Blitz).
Imagine for a moment that the situation was reversed -- that with the 1.10 update, bombing remained the laser-guided sniping it was in 1.09, bomb capacities had been expanded to their historical limits (i.e., the B-17 with a maximum bomb load of 17,600 pounds for short-range missions), destruction of strat targets porked airfields supplied by those targets so you had to take off with bad gas and limited ammo loads, and the way that bomber gunnery worked had been altered so that bomber gunners could kill fighters the way that gunners claimed kills in the skies over Europe.
Suddenly, not only do bombers constitute a real and continuing threat to your ability to furball, but when you do try to run the bombers down and kill them before they flatten your fields, they blow you out of the sky without you being able to damage them significantly. And when you complain that the update has made the game pointless for you, some loudmouth bomber pilot yammers on about how Aces High is all about taking airfields and causing resets, and fighter-vs-fighter combat is only an adjunct to the bombing campaign, and that all the Whiskey Delta gomers who squeak about the changes should face reality and live with it.
Doesn't sound so funny on the other foot, does it? The game changed massively with the 1.10 update -- an update which changed the balance of play in a direction that lets you ignore the things you didn't want to have to pay attention to -- and you're pissing and moaning because the people who got screwed over by the update want to move things closer back to the way they were previously. I'm dead certain that if you'd been shafted by the update, you'd be arguing just as seriously to get things shifted back as the bomber pilots are now. Remember this, lasz, because the bomber pilots will, and we'll laugh at you when the game gets tilted the other way by an update and you complain.
...to destroy a countries capability to fly from a field that they still own or... to not be able to leave a 25% tether doesn't seem like a good plan for MA play where many are only on for an hour or so IMO. it creates a situation where you are essentially unable to find a fight.
So what you are saying is that players are unable to figure out what the bardar and radar dots are there for? That sounds like a pretty serious insult to the other players.
-
Originally posted by Shiva
(carefully ignoring how badly RAF Fighter Command was getting wasted by the Luftwaffe until Hitler went stupid and ordered the Blitz).
Since this is the second time I've seen this, it should be noted that this job was done either by Stukas before they were withdrawn, or by large (tens of planes, usually around 50) raids of level bombers, not the sort of small raids that took place pre 1.10.
It should also be noted that when these bombers were unescorted, Fighter Command mauled them terribly, something that also wasn't the case pre 1.10.
But as I've said before, and as Popeye has also said, gameplay and fun are what's important, not historical accuracy. If you want to say that it takes fifty level bombers to maul a field, though, I won't disagree.
So you're freed from having to worry about bombers approaching, because you know that they can't do anything to hurt you.
I must confess, this is what I've wanted all along. I'm sorry if this is less fun for some bomber pilots -- it seems we are at an impasse. I guess this is that fighter/bomber animus Seagoon talks of.
I want the bomber guys to have fun too, but I never want to go back to the days where a lone bomber pilot could wreck a field from very high altitude. I've seen some proposals to make things more fun for the bomber pilots, and some of them look pretty good, but if any should involve making a lone bomber pilot the mortal threat it was earlier (yes, I'm talking about crater damage,) I will have to voice my opposition.
Again, I actually *like* being able to ignore the bombers for once. That may seem unreasonable to some of you, but there it is.
-
Hi Runny,
Well, I'll say one thing at least, your post is pretty darn frank and honest about your feelings about why you don't like the level buffs and why you don't want them back.
Just a couple of quick reactions...
We all like innovations that favor our style of play and once they are in place we'll fight to keep 'em. It's like trying to abolish a hand-out once it's been put in place by politicians.
Bombers are naturally mostly hated by the fighter crowd, so their neutering has been welcomed. There are two core problems with that though. The first is that lest we forget, fighters are actually defensive weapons, bombers are offensive. Now that bombers are gone, we have a massive shift strategically in favor of defense. Bombers, Recon, and Close Support aircraft are war winners - the job of fighters is actually to try to stop them from doing their job and prevent other fighters from defending them. That equation is gone at present.
The second is that not only is the bomber crowd tremendously frustrated (we actually liked flying these Big Ugly Fellas) but the vehicle of choice for a LOT of the inexperienced pilots is now gone. I learned to fly AW on Buffs and for a long time here in AH it was the only way I could play without getting constantly wasted by all the fighter experten while I learned the new flight dynamics. At present I feel for a lot of the new guys who are going up only to be shot down immediately by the experienced players. No one likes to experience firsthand what Japanese pilots must have felt like in 1945.
I have no stats to back it up, but my guess is that this will negatively impact subscribership, which will ultimately impact all of you if HT can't afford to do what we want, or like so many other OL games goes out of business.
I guess because of the territorialism, this, like all problems that favor one side or the other will have to be settled by HT not us. I'm glad that HT listens to player input, and I'm confident that they probably know there is a problem that needs to be addressed and will address it. I look at 1.10-13 as the betas for the new bombing system, and as we all know in programing "quality is job 1.1" The system needs to be tweaked, and I'm hoping it will be.
FWIW I think even the fighter jocks would enjoy a more ground target rich environment. Where are those smokestacks belching sulfurous fumes into the sky? Those bridges itching to be dumped into a river? Those packed Fuel Dumps, Vehicle parks and assembly areas that need to be worked over with .50 cal. Oh and by the way, large Airfields need a mix of light and heavy mannable ack. A few quad 20mms and some twin MG42s need to be added to the ubiquitous and mostly useless 37mms. That would also add to the clustering for bombing we are looking for.
BTW - I'm really looking forward to the "mishun" arena with player progression. I'm planning on being a Half-Elven Fighter-Cleric so I can heal other planes in flight myself.
- Seagoon
-
This all goes back to what I think the principles we have to satisfy are.
[list=1]
- Immediate impact as a result of level bombing
- Providing a role for level bombers suited to their capabilities (e.g. carpet bombing etc.)
- Fit within the MA gameplay ecosystem without adversely impacting the natural balance
You can't just have 1 without the other 2 in relation to the gameplay.
In my opinion going back to pre 1.10 laser guided bombing isn't the right answer. Nor is the current 1.10 bombing gameplay implementation with a lack of bombing impact the right answer. Neither solution satisfies all 3 principles.
I believe coming to a consensus on this would be huge step in coming up with a REASONABLE solution. And I do believe a reasonable solution exists.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
I want the bomber guys to have fun too, but I never want to go back to the days where a lone bomber pilot could wreck a field from very high altitude. I've seen some proposals to make things more fun for the bomber pilots, and some of them look pretty good, but if any should involve making a lone bomber pilot the mortal threat it was earlier (yes, I'm talking about crater damage,) I will have to voice my opposition.
Remember, Runny, that even if someone takes up a Lancaster formation and lays 1,000-lb bomb craters the length of the runway, fighters can still take off from the hangars along the taxiways -- or just along the grass. Laying craters across the field would make it harder to get heavy fighters off the field, but since what I've seen are the furballers complaining about buffs being able to hurt the fields, that won't be an issue, since anyone who loads bombs for a furball deserves to die.
Making the fields and strat targets more complex would address many problems -- it gives the buff drivers more targets to drop on, makes buffs more important for capturing fields, and keeps a single buff driver from completely fragging a field.
If a minor field had, say, four or five FHs and eight or nine revetments, all of which had to be bombed to close the field to fighter launches, then there's no way that a single bomber formation is going to be able to shut down the field. And with the increased number of targets that have to be destroyed to close the field, it tilts the balance back from jabos to buffs, because where it would take more than a dozen jabos to close the field, three or four buff formations could do it.
If you wanted to tilt the balance even further, making it harder to close fields and making buffs more important, then it should be fairly easy to raise the stakes -- require that, to close a field for bombers or fighters, all of the appropriate type of hangars/revetments have to be destroyed within a short time period, such as five minutes. This would represent how, if you give the defenders time, they can disperse the aircraft away from the hangars and continue operations. With more targets on a field, this would make it harder for a field to be closed -- jabo strikes would have to be much better coordinated -- while the ability of a buff group to take out multiple targets on a single pass would allow a small group of buff drivers to make a single pass over the field bomb the field down. It still requires coordination to close the field, but it both allows fighter operations to continue despite molestation by a single buff driver, but it draws the buff drivers back into the field capture process, because they've got the bomb load to let you take fields with fewer people.
-
shiva said.... "At the risk of pointing out your hypocrisy again, lasz, what it boils down to is that, prior to 1.10, the bomber pilots had a noticeable effect on the play of the game; one or two bomber pilots could shut down a field so that a small group of fighters could clear the AAA for a goon to come in to capture the field. This meant that you had to tear yourself away from your furball when you saw a bomber coming in, because it was a threat to your being able to keep furballing"
Again? I am still trying to find where I was a hypocrite in the first place. enlighten me. Other than that.....We see the pre 1.10 gameplay differently. I see it as, prior to 1.10 a fluff with a no talent, atention starved bus driver could lazer guide some bombs from very high alt onto a field and destroy a few carports thereby ruining a great fight and a lot of skilled players fun. The fields were rarely captured after the FH attack and they simply lay fallow and useless. A real attention starved fluffer might be able to make 2 or three fields useless for awhile.
The "antidote" for such ridiculous unbalance was for some fighter jock to sacrafice his fun for the good of all the others and "cap" the furball so that an attention starved fluffer couldn't have an "effect" on the game. This was of course a huge bore and a lot to ask of someone. His evening of gameplay was ruiined and his only reward was to shoot down some half Ai fluff... If he was lucky he could kill the chute. Meanwhile.... everyone else was having fun while he was watching.
truth is... fluffers are lucky that they are no fun to shoot down and a waste of time because if they were really worth killing and even halfway fun then fighter guys would hunt em and kill every one of em with no problem and they would still have "no affect" on the gameplay.
long as fluffers insist on having an effect on fighters then they are gonna be unhappy. We will put up with a little inconvienience from them but as soon as they can't be ignored they will be resented and people will try to get rid of em. long as fluffers insist on wanting to kill targets better suited to jabo they will be unhappy.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Lazs:
And karnak.... to destroy a countries capability to fly from a field that they still own or... to not be able to leave a 25% tether doesn't seem like a good plan for MA play where many are only on for an hour or so IMO. it creates a situation where you are essentially unable to find a fight. That may seem simplistic to you but many are in it for the simple fight. If we can allow fights to continue but strat guys to effect the outcome of the war... then isn't everyone getting what they want..
I agree, that is why I have never advocated those things. The fact that you keep putting words in my mouth about that is quite vexing.
I have repeatedly stated that the ability to globaly pork fuel would be much too powerful. I have repeatedly stated that airfields should be very bomber resistant, as they are now.
I have suggested alternatives that do not go against either of those principles, but you just can't seem to see it.
As to affecting the outcome of the war being what strat guys want. No, that is not correct. Strat guys want to affect the course of the war. Just affecting the end does nothing but give a magic "we win" button. Level bombers being able to affect the course of the war is not irreconcilable with furballs.
Changes needed to do so:
- Strategic targets must not be resupplyable by C-47s, M-3s or LTV2s. Strategic assets build vehicles and supply bases, not the other way around.
- Strategic targets that are densely packed and large need to be added. These targets would be ideal for carpet bombing, but would require many bombers to destroy.
- The new strategic targets should be fortified with multitudes of reinforced gun positions to make Jabo aircraft nearly useless against them.
- The new strategic targets would govern the durability of all hangers. When the new strategic targets are at 100% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at full durability. When the new strategic targets are at 0% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at something like 50% of full durability.
- FH, BH and VH full durability levels need to be increased, say to 4,000lbs needed to destroy a hanger when at full durability.
- Change the HQ down effect so that it doesn't completely black out radar. Rather the HQ being down should cause players to only recieve radar updates from the nearest friendly field. This would still deny a side the ability to see the big picture, but would allow them to still find fights and not conduct excessive dot chasing. It would also make sense having the HQ as a national coorinator.
My predictions about the effects these changes would have:
- Furballs would be harder to stop due to the greater base durability of the hangers. This is good for the furballers.
- Bomber strikes on the new strategic targets would be run by the strat players so that the strat players in Jabo aircraft and Goons could take bases. This is good for the bomber guys as it gives them a valuable and appriciated role.
- Always having some radar allows fights to be found in allsituations. This might mitigate the tendency of people to log off enmasse when the HQ is taken out and kept out. This is good for the furballers.
- The HQ being taken out denies the enemy the ability to effectively coordinate against attacks. While plenty of fighting would still occur, the enemy would not be able to effectively block major attacks. This is good for the strat guys.
- Ammunition, ordanace and fuel would not be able to be porked globally. This is good for the furballers.
I really think this would allow strat guys and furballers to co-exist happily. It would be ideal for people like me who sometimes just want to fuball and sometimes want to play the strat game.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Changes needed to do so:
- Strategic targets must not be resupplyable by C-47s, M-3s or LTV2s. Strategic assets build vehicles and supply bases, not the other way around.
- Strategic targets that are densely packed and large need to be added. These targets would be ideal for carpet bombing, but would require many bombers to destroy.
- The new strategic targets should be fortified with multitudes of reinforced gun positions to make Jabo aircraft nearly useless against them.
- The new strategic targets would govern the durability of all hangers. When the new strategic targets are at 100% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at full durability. When the new strategic targets are at 0% the FHs, BHs and VHs would be at something like 50% of full durability.
- FH, BH and VH full durability levels need to be increased, say to 4,000lbs needed to destroy a hanger when at full durability.
- Change the HQ down effect so that it doesn't completely black out radar. Rather the HQ being down should cause players to only recieve radar updates from the nearest friendly field. This would still deny a side the ability to see the big picture, but would allow them to still find fights and not conduct excessive dot chasing. It would also make sense having the HQ as a national coorinator.
[/B]
I like this. I really like this.
-
One fact that has been completely overlooked in this thread is that players who bombed from 25k+ gave up a significant amount of their play time for that altitude. As I see it, patience should be rewarded.
Having said this, my bombing skill in a Lancaster had gotten to the point where I could easily take out all the fighter hangers at even a medium field. I can see why a correction to this model was deemed necessary, but on the other hand, version 1.1 has gone entirely too far. Several of my friends have sworn off bombing altogether because of these changes. If you want to get an idea of the impact on gameplay, just check out the stats after this last reset to see just how few bomber sorties are being flown.
I would like to see some minor adjustments that would swing the balance back to the point that level bombing would at least be considered worthwhile again by some of the players who have abandoned it. Remember that historical accuracy shouldn't be the trump card -- it's a GAME, and that game needs to be fun to play in all of it's aspects. If the game were completely historically accurate, I'm sure nobody would play it. No one would spend hours on a single mission with no real action except for a few minutes of it.
Zizu
-
At the risk of correcting sabre again....
I'm still waiting to hear the first "correction" (what you've done is disagree...not the same thing). Your myopic view of history is nothing short of amazing, my friend! I see too much wrong with everything you've said, Lazs, to expend the time necessary to "correct" it all, so I'll simply reiterate my views again. Bombers had a place in real life. They were a threat to an enemy, requiring them to be countered. That is not the case in AH at this time, and I believe this needs to be addressed by HTC, in order to restore the rich diversity of gameplay that used to be the norm. Oh, and I do play so I can live in that diversity, and pay my $15 a month for the privilage. Guess that makes us both self-centered son's of biscuits, don't it?:D
By the way, there's a point Lazs and his ilk have conveniently ignored in their self-rightous arguments against bombers "interference" with fighter ops. It takes little more talent for a Jabo to drop a bomber hanger or ammo bunker than it does for a bomber to take out a fighter hanger or fuel tanks. Indeed, under the new bombing method the Jabo's job is probably easier, if he dosen't mind dying in the process. So if one fighter pilot can pork the fun of bomber pilots by killing their hanger or ammo dump at a field, then how can you argue that it is unacceptable for bomber pilots to do the same to the fighter pilots? Your argument that it's okay for fighters to kill fields facilities because it's "harder" is based on a faulty premise.
The really humorous part of all this is, that's not what I and other bomber advocates are asking for (most of us, anyway). Neither do we want a role that "wins the war" in such a way as there's no challange to it.
But winning the war requires the takine of bases. Thus, those who like to fly bombers (exclusively or occasionally) want to have an impact on that process, one that provides at least as much timely satisfaction as a fighter pilot (or goon pilot, for that matter) gets when fighting for that same cause. As they pay the same monthly fee as anyone else, they're entitled to it.
-
Runny,
Thanks. It feels good to have my idea liked by some of the furballers.
Like you, I don't want furballs to be easily stopped. I like furballs, and in past tours have spent most of my time in them. This most recent tour was spent roach stomping.
-
Karnak:
Didn't get a chance to reply yet but I also liked most of your ideas. I think where I differ from you are around the points around strat assets and field hardness.
I'm not sure either gives enough direct impact for the level bombers. Thats just my opinion.
I really liked your idea of the strat targets that are next to impossible for jabos to take out. What if we added a twist to this to give level bombers more impact?
What if the capture of several of these large strategic targets was a part of the victory condition? The only way to destroy them and prep them is with level bombing.
I would keep your strat asset and field hardiness ideas but would add this in addtion to.
Tango,XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
sabre... yur view of history is a strange one.. "bombers were required to be countered"?? sure.. if you didn't want your cities bombed all to hell but they sure didn't need much countering against the targets available in AH... Look how many jabo or single engine planes killed ships and then how many multi engined bombers did.... same for airfields.
sabre I was correcting your terms... you used symbiotic for the AH bomber/fighter relationship and the correct term is parasitic.
The rest of your post is just pouty... you want gameplay concessions given to fluffs.. you don't want it historical nor do u want good gameplay for the majority of the players... you want affirmative action and for patience to be considered a skill.
karnak at least get's it. he seperates area from pinpoint targets and trys to come up with a way for the fluffs to feel needed. I have been not paying as much attention to his idea as it deserved but still.... I don't think the current crop of fluffers are gonna be happy knowing that they "contributed" unless they can DIRECTLY affect the fighter pilots. They want everyone to quake in fear when they lumber on over on their suicide run.... they want to never be able to ignored...
And there is where the difference (and the enigma)lies... Even my poor, badly flown -1a can't be ignored by the other fighters in the area. Why? because I will impact them directly. I will impact them and I will do it in a way that they must react. If they die... they will only be able to blame themselves... I might even earn a little admiration if I get real lucky but certainly... I will have an impact. You can't make that happen with fluffs and that is what they want.
lazs
-
Again? I am still trying to find where I was a hypocrite in the first place. enlighten me.
Your claims that, IRL, bombers were used for strategic, not tactical, combined with your flat-out insistence that bombers should not be permitted to have any theatre-wide (i.e., strategic) effect on game play. You want your precious furball, and don't want bombers to be able to affect that.
You repeatedly deny that level bombers were used against airfields, while the historical records show that they were used fairly often for that purpose. Certainly those raids involved more than a single formation of three bombers -- but remember, too, that the changes to the way bombing works have only recently been implemented; people are still learning how to make the new bombing system work, and the bomb damage mechanism denies buffers the ability to use many of the tactics that were used historically.
truth is... fluffers are lucky that they are no fun to shoot down and a waste of time because if they were really worth killing and even halfway fun then fighter guys would hunt em and kill every one of em with no problem and they would still have "no affect" on the gameplay.
If fighters came up seriously after the bombers, then it would be easy to get people to fly escort, because that would be where the kills were. You've already admitted this yourself in previous comments. I fondly remember, way back in DOS Air Warrior, running squad ops with two or three buff drivers and five to seven fighters flying cover. In more than two dozen of those missions, the people who were flying cover for me were so good that only once was a P-47 pilot able to get past them and shoot at me.
If all you want to do is furball, then I suggest that you convince HT that what is needed is a furball arena -- all it needs is three fields, one for each country, with ordnance and buffs and GVs turned off, so all anyone can do is take up a fighter and furball. And when people get tired of it and go back to the MA, you can whine about how unfair it is that you have to go into the MA and suffer the depredations of the evil bomber pilots in order to get enough opponents to make an interesting furball.
-
I'd like to make a suggestion that we don't make this a fighter vs bomber, bomber vs fighter thread.
Let's hear what everyone has to say about the proposals laid out thus far.
Tango,XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
shiva... where did I ever use the words "strategic" or "tactical" to describe bomber targets. My point remains that the targets in AH are more suited to single engine than multi engine bombing/strafing. Historicaly it was the same. airfields were not good multi engine bomber targets. Nor were ships..
bombers did not effect the fighter war except to draw the more timid/outnumbered countries fighters up to engage in battle.
people don't want to come up "seriously" after fluffs... don't you get it? It is boring. fighter guys are not born without the boredom gene like fluffers. If yu force people to atttack and/or escort fluffs you will just lower HTC's income. people won't want to be bored for their money.
If you want a bomber game... and since you are the minority then why not just lobby for a seperate bomber arena? One where your "skills" can be showcased. If it is fun the fighter guys will be clibing over each other to get into it.
dtango... the problem is that it is all about fighter vs bomber. fighters want to ignore bombers and bombers want fiters to not be able to. How ya gonna fix that? Where is the dividing line between spoiling gameplay and making fluffers feel useful?
lazs
-
I want to ignore blue planes.
-
bombers did not effect the fighter war except to draw the more timid/outnumbered countries fighters up to engage in battle.
Oh my gosh! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this. This has got to be the most skewed view of history I've ever seen, even from you, Lazs, ol' buddy. There was no "fighter war!" The sole purpose of the existance of air power, then and now, is to put bombs on target...to smash things and kill people (on the ground, not in other fighter cockpits). Fighter development was driven by the need to counter this...period. The fact that they eventually added more air to ground capability to fighters was tacit acknowledgement that some targets were too pin-point in nature to use bombers efficiently against. By the way, I can provide numerous accounts of the 8th Air Force attacking German airfields using formations of heavy and medium bombers. Many were area targets quite suitable to area bombing. Plus, the defensive ack was so intense that JABO's paid too high a cost to hit them. AH doesn't reflect these historical facts of course, and this as well as the strategic effectiveness of bombers is what this thread is trying to address.
sabre... yur view of history is a strange one.. "bombers were required to be countered"?? sure.. if you didn't want your cities bombed all to hell but they sure didn't need much countering against the targets available in AH...
I'm sure to you it is, based on your earlier statements. However, you've exactly made my case here. Bombers don't need countering in the MA right now, for exactly the reason you've stated here. There, we've agreed on something.
However, dtango is right; let's talk about solutions, such as the idea of making structure targets such as hangers and town/city buildings require bombs and rockets to kill (or at least making guns much more inneffective against them)? Also increase the "blast" effectiveness of those bombs when targeting structures. Consider along with this the idea of making enough of them at the field towns and strat targets that makes level bombers the more efficient platform for attacking them. I understand your opposition to tying field supplies to strat target damage, even if I don't agree, so let's set that one aside for the moment. Lastly, add the idea of no resupply for strat targets.
There! A complete proposal. This would seem to fit the furballers' requirement that the bombers not be any more immediately impactful to fighter ops than they are now. Yet it gives them a role more in line with their historic capabilities. It gives bombers a role in base attack (both strategically and tactically) by making the bases easier to capture, while not making it any easier for a single bomber pilot to pork field supplies for aircraft launching from there (still possible, but also still a better job for the Jabos). Jabos could still kill structures, but not as efficiently as before. This would of course also reduce the fighters' unfair porking of bomber operations that regularly goes on now;).
The above suggestions not only give bombers a better role in the MA, but makes them more of a threat to those who care about more than just the next kill. This makes them more worthwhile and satisying to kill. This in turn makes the bomber formation itself a combat generater, as escorts become more prevalent.
-
Originally posted by Shiva
If all you want to do is furball, then I suggest that you convince HT that what is needed is a furball arena -- all it needs is three fields, one for each country, with ordnance and buffs and GVs turned off, so all anyone can do is take up a fighter and furball.
Visit the DA and look at the east side.
Just rename MA to FCA (field capture arena) and DA to MA. This will get lot's of players in what was formerly known as DA.
-
I know I'm getting old and probably confusing history but I always thought Axis bombers had bombed R.A.F. airfields at the start of the B.O.B. so much that British airplane production could not replace the plane losses. That this only changed when Adolf got mad at the bombing of Berlin sent his bombers to hit British cities.
I always thought that prior to D-Day that Allied bombers wasted Axis airfields in France so that on Aug. 6th very few Luftwaffe fighters were around to oppose the landings and very few in the weeks following were around to hamper Allied forces.
I also thought that when the Allies were stuck at the hedgerows that over 1000 bombers went out and carpet bombed in front of the hedgerows and devasted Axis forces so much that the Allies broke out and started the race to the Rhine.
I also thought that a few months before V.E. Day thet Allied Command became so fed up with Axis fighters still coming up to hit bombers that they sent every bomber and fighter they could to every Axis airbase and shut them down so well that the Luftwaffe was no longer a viable force.
I always thought that the dogfights (furballs to some) happened between 15-20 K when enemy planes would go after bombers and defenders would go in to protect bombers. I've yet to read anything about dogfights (furballs) occuring 1/2 mile from airfields at 1-5 K altitude. But I guess that happened. Probably in the Marianas Turkey Shoot.
Its hell getting old and getting your history messed up.
-
Oops, double post.
-
dtango,
That is a good idea. Make the targets a capturable asset in addition to the other effects that I mentioned. One that is required to be absolutely pulverized in order to shut down the defensive guns.
ET,
The Germans never managed to destroy the Spitfires and Hurricanes as fast as the British were building them. British stockpiles of fighters increased throughout the Battle of Britian.
However, the Luftwaffe was killing British pilots, in the air, faster than they could be replaced.
The RAF was destroying the Luftwaffe's aircraft faster than they were being built. This was due to the German conclusion in mid-1940 that the war was won and to stand down from wartime production.
-
Thank you Karnak, I appreciate the info.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Runny,
Thanks. It feels good to have my idea liked by some of the furballers.
Like you, I don't want furballs to be easily stopped. I like furballs, and in past tours have spent most of my time in them. This most recent tour was spent roach stomping.
Well, truth be told, I've been known, on occasion, to fly planes whose primary purpose was to drop things. I really like flying fighters more, though.
I really want the buff dudes to have fun, too. I just want them to have to choose between inaccurate bomb drops and greater fighter/ack threat. I don't want them neutered, and to be honest, I wouldn't complain one bit if a bomber at 10K could raze a field, as long as one at 30K could not. I also would like to see worthwhile targets that they could hit from 30K.
What I don't miss, though, is the experience of fighting off an intense Jabo attack, then looking and seeing three Lancasters, 20K above the fight. I don't miss it at all, and I'm not at all shy about saying so.
-
et.. the germans never had a four engined bomber and most of the damage done to pinpoint targets (like radar) was with stukas and jabo. Low level 111's at the most. There were no axis planes at D day because allied fighters had killed em all.
sabre.. What are you saying? are you saying that bombers in WWII won the war because they killed all the fighters and destroyed the ability of some country or another to make war? The A bomb maybe. Otherwise... the war was won on the ground and air superiority was won with fighters using bombers as bait.
as for yur proposal... maybe. depends on "hardness" You seem to admit that "winning the war" is unimportant to a lot of players and that no one will play with bombers unless they have to. We agree on those things.. you then seem to admit that the only targets worth hitting for the fluffers are.... fighters. They don't want to affect the war and they don't want to fly the proper plane for the proper target. they want to fly a plane ill suited to the target they choose and they want it to be effective. Fine... lame but fine. Call it gameplay. They want people to respect their effort... that's a little tougher if you give em concessions.
I have no problem with making guns inefective against say hangers but... they will still be the ack strafer of choice except now... with your increassed hardness model we will have fields with no ack and fighters circling around looking for someone dumb enough to take off... You will have a lot of useless fields unless some fluffer happens along at that field.. Seems that more fields will sit fallow and useless. The balance of ack and hanger/fuel etc. hardness is pretty well done right now.. if you make it harder to kill everything else then you will have to make the ack harder and.... it will really make the game feell unrealistic to strafe ack with no effect.
I still think that the route to go is to give the fluffers targets that they historically had. Ones that are suited to fluffs. Beats tweaking out the pinpoint targets that we have now untill they are unrealistic to both fighter and bomber.
lazs
-
sabre.. What are you saying? are you saying that bombers in WWII won the war because they killed all the fighters and destroyed the ability of some country or another to make war? The A bomb maybe. Otherwise... the war was won on the ground and air superiority was won with fighters using bombers as bait.
And the Ardennes offensive was lost by the Germans because of the overwhelming superiority of the Allied forces, not because the Germans ran out of fuel to continue operations? Fuel that the Allied bombing offensive against the POL production and transport prevented from reaching the operational forces?
I still think that the route to go is to give the fluffers targets that they historically had.
Yes, let's. The 17th Bomb Group, flying B-26s, flew its first combat mission against Gabes Airfield in southern Tunisia on 30 December 1942, and flew interdictory and close-support missions, bombing bridges, rail lines, marshalling yards, harbors, shipping, gun emplacements, troop concentrations, and other targets in North Africa before joining the campaign against Sicily and Italy. The 17th received a DUC for a bombing attack on airdromes at Rome on 13 Jan 1944. The 97th Bomb Group, flying B-17s, on June 7, 1944, bombed the German airfield at the city of Galati in Romania. On June 11, they bombed Focsani airfield near Bucharest.
One of the things that makes AH inherently completely unrealistic is that underneath every airfield is a gigantic, indestructible, storage chamber for aircraft, with tens of thousands of each type immediately available. Airfield attacks during WWII to destroy aircraft on the ground were always more effective than trying to destroy them in the air. But in AH, it doesn't matter -- as long as the FHs are up, you can always get the plane of your choice at the field. Bombers carpet-bombing the field may not have been able to put the field out of action for longer than it took bulldozers to push dirt back into the craters, but destroying the aircraft at the field would cripple the ability to mount air operations from that field until more planes were brought in.
The balance of ack and hanger/fuel etc. hardness is pretty well done right now.. if you make it harder to kill everything else then you will have to make the ack harder...
I think that fields -- particularly major fields -- need to have their ack beefed up a lot to more accurately represent what the targets were like. When the 5AF went after Rabaul in the fall of 1943, it was a very heavily defended target. The harbor was generally more or less filled with IJN warships loaded with AAA. On land, the AAA consisted of 8 127mm, 15 120mm, 20 80mm, 75 70mm, 110 40mm, 92 25mm, 157 20mm, and one 13mm. These were distributed among 7 AAA battalions and five field machinecannon companies. Many were mounted on the slopes of the two volcanoes dominating the harbor so they could fire down on low level intruders. "Most Secret" Sitreps of the actions concluded 448 e/a destroyed on the ground and 112 in the air. Highest mission losses to enemy action were 27.3 percent of the B-24, 40 percent for the B-25, 27.6 percent for the P-38 escorts. Wewak was considered a far tougher target than Rabaul, and Hollandia was tougher than Wewak.
Makes the field ack we've got look pretty lame, doesn't it? Against defenses like that, you want attacking buff forces, so that their large bomb loads can blow down enough of the target's defenses so that jabo runs have a chance of surviving long enough to perform the precision attacks that level bombers can't make. None of this 'one fighter to strafe out the town ack, a heavy fighter to kill the VH, a couple of heavy fighters to flatten the town, and CAP to kill any FPs that came up before the VH was killed while you run the goon in to capture the port' routine.
Tactics in the ETO and PTO were significantly different. In the PTO, the emphasis was on destroying aircraft on the ground, to tax the ability of the Japanese to produce more aircraft and deliver them to the airfields. In the ETO, the intent was to get the Luftwaffe to come up after the bombers so that both the aircraft and its pilot could be destroyed, since it was always much easier for Germany to replace materiel losses. Unfortunately, in AH we've got PTO-style field-attack tactics combined with ETO materiel resupply and an infinite supply of pilots. The whole thing is broken.
-
One thing is very true. The AH bombers have lost their bite and don't really have much of a usable role.
For myself, I no longer give it my ALL to pursue, hunt down and destroy bombers. This is because I realize that they really don't have any effect upon the current strat system. WHY RISK IT?
Under v1.10, I had once beleived that I would see massive flights of bombers attacking airfields. I'm not sure why this does not happen more often. I only assume that it is because even at that, the chance of even slightly effecting the game really is too low vs the time spent. Nothing really happens to make it fun after the novelty has passed.
IMO bombers moved from an absurd LGB system to a more realistic system ( Which is very cool! :) ), but does not allow the bombers a role which can effect gameplay. This is because gameplay was developed and balanced under the LGB model, not the current one.
-
shiva.. a few anomalies do not make for 4 engined bombers being pinpoint targets killers... their effectiveness at such targets is pitifull (b25's are twin engine bombers and were also strafers).
Probly the one target that was vulnerable to bombing and was least capitalized on was fuel... Even then... I don't think you could knock out fuel production in completely in countries that had their own resources.
I like the idea of revetments for fighters and not hangers. I don't think that any field save those that were allmost completetly overan was ever out of ac.. The planes were hidden in the woods and in the jungle and in revetments.. Hardly targets for some lumbering half blind fluff... the planes killed on the ground were allmost all killed by single engine fighters. That is as it should be. also.. you should be able to ferry planes (resupply). I mean, when you land a t a field you should be able to take off from it again.
lazs
-
Shiva: Lazs’ mind is made up…kindly don’t confuse him with the facts…that’s my job:D.
et.. the germans never had a four engined bomber and most of the damage done to pinpoint targets (like radar) was with stukas and jabo. Low level 111's at the most. There were no axis planes at D day because allied fighters had killed em all.
Couple of points here, Lazs: We’re not talking about pin-point targets here, at least not exclusively. Some airfields were small satellite fields, but many were large and sprawling installations suitable to mass level bombing. The Stuka’s were withdrawn rather early in the Battle of Britain due to their horrendous losses. The Germans didn’t have any significant Jabo capability until after the BoB was over; the 190 wasn’t in service yet and the 109E’s that fought the BoB had no serious grand attack capability. The 110’s had some capacity for Jabo work, but were also roughly handled by the RAF. Hence, the majority of the bombs dropped, both during the initial assaults on RAF Fighter Command and later during the Blitz, were dropped by 111’s, Do-17’s, and Ju-88’s. The lack of a four-engine bomber has been oft-sighted by the uninformed as supporting the common myth that the Luftwaffe had no doctrine for strategic bombing. This is simply not true. By the way, the Germans did have a four-engine bomber. I can’t remember the make and model, but it used two engines linked to a single propeller in each wing. It had numerous problems in production and operationally, but did see service in squadron strength later in the war. They had also developed a four-engine bomber before the war, but it was too slow and underpowered, and was no longer in service in 1939. Finally, there were no Axis fighters on D-day because most of the fighters on the Channel front had been temporarily transferred to the Eastern front. That combined with attrition in the air and on the ground, the systematic pounding of strategic targets, and the inability to replace pilot losses all contributed to the no-show status of the Luftwaffe on June 6, 1944.
sabre.. What are you saying? are you saying that bombers in WWII won the war because they killed all the fighters and destroyed the ability of some country or another to make war? The A bomb maybe. Otherwise... the war was won on the ground and air superiority was won with fighters using bombers as bait.
I never said bombers won the war, and certainly didn’t say they did it by destroying all the enemy fighters. That is putting words in my mouth and is an intellectually dishonest tactic for debate. What I said is that the purpose of air power is to break things and kill people. Air superiority is a necessary prerequisite to do that efficiently. Air superiority is the sum of its parts, those parts being killing enemy fighters in the air, destroying them on the ground, and hampering the enemy’s efforts to produce and supply and operate those fighters. I challenge you to site one credible source that supports the idea that killing them in the air is the most efficient way to achieve air superiority. I can’t help but feel your historical view has been warped by your experiences playing Aces High in the MA. I do assert that the primary purpose of the strategic bombing campaign was to destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war. While it can be argued that the Allies were never completely successful in doing so to Germany (thought I submit the did accomplish this with Japan), none but the completely ignorant will claim Germany’s ability to continue the war (land, sea, and air) was not terribly hampered by the Allies’ Bomber Offensive.
as for yur proposal... maybe. depends on "hardness" You seem to admit that "winning the war" is unimportant to a lot of players and that no one will play with bombers unless they have to. We agree on those things.. you then seem to admit that the only targets worth hitting for the fluffers are.... fighters. They don't want to affect the war and they don't want to fly the proper plane for the proper target. they want to fly a plane ill suited to the target they choose and they want it to be effective. Fine... lame but fine. Call it gameplay. They want people to respect their effort... that's a little tougher if you give em concessions.
I agree that winning the war is unimportant to an appreciable number of players, though we have only your assertions that they are the majority. As for no one playing with bombers unless they have to, that is not strictly true. Some still fly bombers (even me, on occasion), and I still manage to get shot down by enemy fighters while doing so. What others and I are saying is that the lack of impact of bombers in the MA has caused a lot of people to stop doing so. They’ve become next to meaningless, making them unrewarding either as rides or as targets. I’m not sure how you’ve interpreted my statements to mean “the only targets worth hitting for the fluffers are.... fighters.” The whole point is that they want to affect the war… it’s just that right now they really don’t.
I have no problem with making guns inefective against say hangers but... they will still be the ack strafer of choice except now... with your increassed hardness model we will have fields with no ack and fighters circling around looking for someone dumb enough to take off...
And how is that different than what we have now? Remember, the reason I suggested making guns less effective against buildings is to make bombers the weapon of choice against towns, cities, and other strat targets. Bomb and rocket laden fighters will still just as effective at killing hangers and buildings…until they run out of bombs and rockets. Ack, fuel and ammo will still be susceptible to strafing as before. Since hangers are still dispersed, they will still be difficult for hi-alt bombers to kill, but not the more densely packed towns and strat targets.
You will have a lot of useless fields unless some fluffer happens along at that field.. Seems that more fields will sit fallow and useless. The balance of ack and hanger/fuel etc. hardness is pretty well done right now.. if you make it harder to kill everything else then you will have to make the ack harder and.... it will really make the game feell unrealistic to strafe ack with no effect.
No field is useless if the hangers are up. You yourself have often espoused the idea that it should be impossible to kill hangers at all, or in any way diminish the ability to operate fighters from fields up until the moment of capture. Are you saying you’ve changed your mind about this? I also don’t follow your reasoning regarding target and ack hardness. Nor do I see how the idea I’ve proposed would result in any significant increase in “useless” fields. The “hardness” can stay the same, as measured in pounds of bombs needed to destroy buildings, hangers, and other strat structures. Ack, fuel, barracks, ammo, and radar would remain the same hardness, and could still be killed just as easily by strafing as they are now. It would simply become more efficient to use bombers against field towns and strat targets. Got it?
I still think that the route to go is to give the fluffers targets that they historically had. Ones that are suited to fluffs. Beats tweaking out the pinpoint targets that we have now untill they are unrealistic to both fighter and bomber.
lazs
We seem to be in violent agreement on this point. However, what we seem to disagree on is what those targets should be, and on what effect hitting those targets should have on gameplay.
-
sabre.... your view of history (or the one you state) is a little naive. you state that Germany's fighters were destroyed in the air and on the ground.. that is correct but they were destroyed by other fighters not by lumbering fluffs. The effect that fluffs had on winning the war was far greater (if at all) during the final death throes of a country when there was no fighters to oppose em (fighters killed in the air and on the ground by other fighters primarily BTW). Other than the A bomb... no country or city surrendered because of being bombed by heavy high alt bombers.... It could be said that bombers did more toward hardining the resolve of the bombed country than any war winning effort. I do not recall any high allt effective bombing by any bombers during the BOB..... 4 engined or not.
and speaking of dishonest... you state that i have "espoused" the idea that fighter hangers should be unkillable.. What i really want is that fighters should be available until the field is captured. I don't want a field to simply lie fallow. I don't want so much that the fh's be indestructable as that they not be considered in the availability of fighters. I would much rather have revetments. It should not be worth the effort to find and kill every revetment and therefore.... fighter availability. Ack should also be hard to completly destroy. Or.... everything should be easy to kill and the fields should change hands rapidly... I don't care which. I simply want to eliminate as much as possible "useless" fields.
so.... in a "tonage on target " type of gameplay.... There should remain a few acks maybe a few GV's , fighter availability etc. until critical mass is reached at which point.... The field changes hands. That would be fine with me. I don't think the fluffers would go for it tho. I believe that it doesn't do enough to force people to play with them and there is not enough instanty gratification for them. It's fair and all but what about the fluffers wants is fair or historic or even good for gameplay? They don't want any of those things. They want to have an immediate and personal impact on other players.. Basicaly, they want the same sort of gratification that is possible in a fighter but without the pesky learniing curve.
lazs
-
and speaking of dishonest... you state that i have "espoused" the idea that fighter hangers should be unkillable.. What i really want is that fighters should be available until the field is captured. I don't want a field to simply lie fallow. I don't want so much that the fh's be indestructable as that they not be considered in the availability of fighters.
:rolleyes: Come on…you’re hiding behind Symantics, Lazs. The result is the same, and everyone reading this knows it. You must have missed the rest of that sentence…
Sabre said:
or in any way diminish the ability to operate fighters
All I can say is, you need to go back and re-read my post. My own view is that making it impossible to affect ops at an enemy field would kill this game more quickly than giving bombers back their lazser bombsites while making them invincible and adding auto-gunners. But that is the topic for a different post. I note that you didn’t seem to have any further comments on my clarifications regarding my proposal. Can I assume than that I’ve cleared up your concerns?
Regarding the tonnage-on-target method of base capture, I’ll reserve judgment until I hear more. Would the bombs have to actually hit base or town structures to be counted towards that tonnage? How many bomb loads would it take? Would it have to all land within a certain time period? Would the side owning the field have some indication of the base’s impending side-switch? Would you still be able to capture using paratroops? On the surface, the idea seems a lot gameier than allowing people to destroy supplies and hangers in order to restrict the enemy’s freedom of action.
By the way, my “view” of air power and air power history is based on twenty years as a professional Air Force officer. I guess all that air power doctrine and theory they crammed down our throats is all wrong though. Imagine their surprise when I go back and tell the Air War College faculty that the entire strategic bombing campaign in WWII was completely ineffective, and really all just a big sham to trick those timid Luftwaffe and Japanese fighter pilots into coming up to fight! Boy, wouldn’t that just frost the mugs of the twenty thousand bomber crewmen (in the 8th AF alone) who died just so those fighter pilots could get some kills and win the war. What a shame.
I have to wonder how much of what you write here is truely what you believe, and how much is just designed to try to envoke an emotional response. Your comments at the Con make me suspect it's the latter, but it's hard to tell. Blanket statements such as you've made here show such an unbelievably narrow view of history as to be...well, unbelievable! They also continue to show a complete lack of understanding of the diversity of the Aces High player base, what they want, and why they play. Fortunately, HiTech and company take a more moderate approach.
-
semantics? I don't think so. You just said "unkillable" to be inflamatory.. something you accuse me of BTW...
and.. far be it for me to pit my pitiful studies of WWII against your vast knowledge but.... perhaps you could enlighten me on just how WWII bombers contributed to the war by effectively hitting the targets that we have in AH? Are you saying that in WWII that jabos would not be a better choice for such targets? Are you saying that luring the axis forces up to do combat was not a huge part of winning air superiority in WWII?
"I never said bombers won the war, and certainly didn’t say they did it by destroying all the enemy fighters. That is putting words in my mouth and is an intellectually dishonest tactic for debate. "
what? so what did you say? You seem to admit that bombers have no historic role then in AH as it is now. You seem to be admitting that WWII bombers had no affect on fighters and air superiority other than forcing the Axis to come up and be slaughtered. just as I have said.
"let's talk about solutions, such as the idea of making structure targets such as hangers and town/city buildings require bombs and rockets to kill (or at least making guns much more inneffective against them)? Also increase the "blast" effectiveness of those bombs when targeting structures. Consider along with this the idea of making enough of them at the field towns and strat targets that makes level bombers the more efficient platform for attacking them. I understand your opposition to tying field supplies to strat target damage, even if I don't agree, so let's set that one aside for the moment. Lastly, add the idea of no resupply for strat targets. "
Again... You are talking about changing the hardness of some targets and not others.. if ack were weak then fields would just be deacked and useless. Again tho... why should pinpoint targets be more more efficiently killed with level bombers rather than jabo? How can that be right? How can it be done without appearing extremely gamey? If bombs and rockets killed thes targets in AH then why not just use the more accurate and simpler jabo? How would your plane help to increase fluff usage or make them more a part of the game? How does 20 years in the AF explain this?
I really am having a hard time figuring out what you want here. maybe if you explained exactly how you think your idea would work? I especially would like to know how you would make the level bombers more effective than jabo for pinpoint targets. Seems like it would turn out just like the PAC in that jabos did all the damage.
lazs
-
You just said "unkillable" to be inflamatory...
Oh no, not at all. Now my second to the last paragraph in my last post, that was meant to be inflamatory;). You just missed it...again. In any event, Lazs, I'll not be drawn further into this with you. If you can't understand what I've been saying all this time, no amount of rewording is going to help you. If you do understand but only appear to be ignorant or dense, then that's a game I've grown weary of. You appear to have missed or ignored everything I've tried to say. The fact that only you seem to be having trouble with the concepts put forth tell me I've reached the audience who really matters, and probably about three posts ago. I've got the feeling they're as weary of this exchange as I am. But as I said at the Con...no hard feelings. I'll even buy the first round next year, as long as it's during Happy Hour:D.
-
well sabre... I guess if you can't answer any questions then you might as well just declare victory and give up.
Your second to the last par... Whaa? all I seen was you bragging about having studied WWII airpower history for 20 years.. that is what you were implying right?
Still.... I expected better answers from a 20 year WWII airpower scholar.
lazs