Damage Points

[dirtdart]

So last month I flew a B-29 all the way to the strats and made significantly less damage points than if I had just dropped town centers. 

I propose a significant increase in the damage points awarded, say three fold, for the strats as an incentive to reinvigorate the disabling of strats.  Also, it would encourage captures in a way.  Many captures head south when you start in on town, only to find the center is missing, and have no clue when it wil "pop". 

[MachFly]

+1

[AWwrgwy]

I believe the incentive to disable strats is to disable strats, which no one actually does.

There is no reason to bomb towns that are not about to be attacked as part of a base take.

Strats attacked in the proper order, City first then strats and taken down to 0%, will slow, if not stop a country's offensive ability when airfields are then porked.

No ords. No troops. No AAA without player resupply.



wrongway

[MachFly]

I believe the incentive to disable strats is to disable strats, which no one actually does.

Clearly this incentive does not work, so we need a different one. Making the strats worth more should be able to fix the problem.

[chipr]

 

[dirtdart]

B-26, town centers 23k points.  I am currently on a Lanc run, after the strats.  Lets see what the tally is.  My best run in Lancs is 50k, just town centers.  I doubt I get that just hitting strats.  More to follow.  

Out of curiosity, what is the effect lets say of flattening fuel?

[dirtdart]

It is dispersion.  That is the root issue.  Town centers are so compact that a single bomb destroys multiple buildings.  The lay out of the strats is more dispersed.  I would say that this is the reason for the disparity in effects.  That said, I can achieve 50K points in one hour.  Tonight the flight to the strats was an hour in itself.  I think tripling the damage points of strats would be a Fair increase and at Least make the investment in time worth the trip.

[Volron]

It not just damage points, it's the rewards for said damage points as well.  I'll up a set of 17's for a town, do 10k damage and come away with 6+ perks.  But making a run on strats and scoring the same damage only net me roughly 1-2 perks.  Of course it could be because I'm always hitting the Industrial Center 1st, before hitting anything else.

The point is, if you really want to give a better incentive, up the amount of perks for hitting strats as well as damage points.

[chipr]

I think the reason you don't get much perks for strat runs is because you can be afk for the majority of the flight. Maybe if all bases shot puffy ack that way ppl who farm pts by hitting undefended bases will have something more to think about rather than the occasional upper.

[grumpy37]

If you read everyones post one thing is clear, no one gets that bombing the strats helps the country as a whole.  Its not worth flying to the strats with a few guys and helping the war effort because you dont get a big enough number displayed on the screen or enough perk points to buy another bomber?

[thndregg]

I have always felt that the current strats are not tangible enough for one side to vigourously defend (as they would against a bomber mission intent on destroying all hangars at a base- as in the IMMEDIATE ability to launch air and ground vehicles) and not immediately vital enough for the other side to attack.

[dirtdart]

My almost two hour lanc flight to the strats yielded the same damage points with one quarter of the bomb weight. My bombing percentage from the 26 run was 19. After the lanc run it was 9. So you have less probability of one bomb damaging more.

It also yielded less perks because of the change in obj despite a kill on a spit xvi. I would certainly recommend taking a hard look at increasing strat values because that will be the last time for a while I invest two hours of playing for 9 perks. 

[grumpy37]

My almost two hour lanc flight to the strats yielded the same damage points with one quarter of the bomb weight. My bombing percentage from the 26 run was 19. After the lanc run it was 9. So you have less probability of one bomb damaging more.

It also yielded less perks because of the change in obj despite a kill on a spit xvi. I would certainly recommend taking a hard look at increasing strat values because that will be the last time for a while I invest two hours of playing for 9 perks. 

So what if HTC totally took out the point system but the object of the game stayed the same, win the war.  What would you do then?  Would you spend the time bombing strats to help the country as a whole since individual points and perks wouldnt exist anymore?

[dirtdart]

So what if HTC totally took out the point system but the object of the game stayed the same, win the war.  What would you do then?  Would you spend the time bombing strats to help the country as a whole since individual points and perks wouldn't exist anymore?

No.  Here is why.  This game could be said to be based around a competitive scoring system.  I doubt the business would get better if folks were not encouraged to see their name in lights and be ranked.  This is undoubtedly a piece of the player base and gets folks to stay in the game.  It is a challenge to some to get ranked.  If the root premise behind the game is a strategy game, then there would be more to it, at least more than what is plainly obvious.  Grizz has made some good point on why the game needs this "chess" component to it, to appeal to the problem solvers in the group (Engineers).  If the destroying 50% of the refinery limits the entire country to 50% fuel, then maybe someone would protect it.  That would change the entire paradigm of the game.  Then, it would be worth having massive bomber missions to the strats, and massive fighter defense of the same. 

Some other suggestions like the old "Spitfire" factory are a bit old fashioned, no one like that, especially since so many fly them.  Simply put, there has to be something to do a bit more obvious than land grab and furball. 

[Lusche]

If you read everyones post one thing is clear, no one gets that bombing the strats helps the country as a whole.  I

If things were that clear & simple, you would see much more attacks on the strat targets.

However, it's is only this way in theory. Practically, it's not worth the effort. If you thinking in strategic "war" terms, attacking the strats is, for all means and purposes, "wasting resources". It needs a huge effort to reduce the strats to a level so low that there is any potentially notable effect on the enemy. You have to kill the city (huge target!) before taking down the factories, or they will be popping up again before you even get home.
So you have to kill the city, then the factory, then pork the enemy bases at the frontline. Now take into consideration how far the strats are usually away, the puffy ack and defenders who don't have to guess where you are going to. Now if you add up everything, you will end with a considerable number of manhours having to be invested. The same effort invested into tactical attacks has a much bigger impact, it's simply far more efficient.
In most cases two to four guys would have to work for hours to impact the strats enough to make a difference (and even then enemy fields still need to be porked to take advantage of it) - but the same number of players could easily keep a whole front (or two even) completely porked all the time without doing all that long range bombing stuff.

It's a lack of balance. I could try to fight my way to the strats in heavy for almost nil effect, or I could very effectively pork half a dozen fields in the same time in heavy fighters. I have tested both options. The result is clear.

So in the end, if you are playing for score points, you will drop random town centers. If your focus is to help your team, you will bomb towns & hangars to make them ready for capture or you will pork fields. Yes, you could always bomb strats for fun only, but most players try to combine fun with a "purpose".