Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: jarbo on November 17, 2001, 11:19:00 PM
-
One of the primary arguments against buffs is that a single one does too much damage. The counter argument is that a long buff mission can be undone by a flight of c47s.
Proposal:
Build maps with strategic targets 4 times the current size. (i.e even 4 HQ buildings) Increase default downtime multiplyer on these objects by somewhere between 2 to 4. That way it takes a lot of buff repeatedly hitting strategic targets to effect overal situation. this would also allow repeat attacks to whittle away tgts.
Jarbo
-
Jarbo, there already is an upcomming plan.
Bombers will become 4 ship flights of bombers (yes...you sortie out as FOUR bombers, not one), reduced bombsight accuracy, and strategic targets will become so tought that only a flight of bombers carpet bombing can kill them.
There are a bunch of unanswered questions about how this is speciffically all going to work, so don't ask. Any answer is a guess or a wish for what that guy wants.
Hans.
-
Enough with the weakening of buffs, they are weak enough.
Besides less than 1% of ppl are flying them (on somewhat regular basis) anyways.
-
Who said anything about weakening buffs? Buffs will be quadrupled, only their accuracy is reduced.
-
How about some 'real' wind and a 'real' Norton Bombsight? Then you would have 'real' WWII bombing. Just a thought ;)
-
That's what I've been clamoring for and been requesting for a while convective turbulence associated with weather fronts and or wind shear(i.e. down draft, up drafts, etc.) affect not only bomb trajectory but also bullet deflection.
-
Originally posted by Kieran:
Who said anything about weakening buffs? Buffs will be quadrupled, only their accuracy is reduced.
I was refering to the whole topic of buffs in general.
I like the idea of commanding 4 bombers.
-
Originally posted by Otto:
How about some 'real' wind and a 'real' Norton Bombsight? Then you would have 'real' WWII bombing. Just a thought ;)
Yes, I want a "real" "Norton" bombsight, one that yells "One of these days Alice...POW".. every time I release a bomb.
-
Originally posted by LtHans:
Jarbo, there already is an upcomming plan.
Bombers will become 4 ship flights of bombers (yes...you sortie out as FOUR bombers, not one), reduced bombsight accuracy, and strategic targets will become so tought that only a flight of bombers carpet bombing can kill them.
There are a bunch of unanswered questions about how this is speciffically all going to work, so don't ask. Any answer is a guess or a wish for what that guy wants.
Hans.
Hans you miss my point. I am proposing having larger strat targets with longer default downtimes. The idea is that sequential attacks can build on damage done before to some extent. I am not implying to weaken bombers (and I am aware of the new 4 buff modification coming up)
Jarbo
-
Jarbo’s idea dovetails nicely with the changes to bomber implementation envisioned by HiTech for v1.09, IMNSHO. By the way, I don’t recall HiTech saying anything specific in the interview on wargamer.com about increasing target hardness, only that he would add dispersion. However, I hope that he also addresses this and other aspects of level bombing, such as a more realistic bombsite that will require some practice to learn to use effectively. Wind would also be a nice change, such that the bomb-aimer would have to determine wind correction factors. The toughness of buildings would certainly have to be looked at as well. I would even go so far as to suggest that cities should have a mix of factories, railyards, and residential buildings, such that bombs that hit residential areas would actually take away perk points (but that may just be my years of indoctrination into the US Law of Armed Conflict talking :) ).
Jarbo’s point is that bomb damage to strategic targets should be harder to inflict, but be more persistent. That way, multiple missions by a reasonable number of bombers would be required to significantly impact the rest of the war in the MA; conversely, the longer rebuild times would give people the time to make those multiple missions. The number of resupply missions and/or trains required to rebuild the strategic target would have to be adjusted as well. Nice idea, Jarbo.