Constructive ideas to make level bombers useful

[Karnak]

Easycor,

The numeric values I gave are arbitrary examples, not what would be used if HTC were to adopt the idea (and based on today's news I'd guess that there won't be any changes to the strat in the MA).  For example, base durability could be increased so that the strat guys would have to bomb the factory complexes just to make it as easy as it is now to capture bases.  The durability levels would have to be played with to find a balance.

Also, this would not involve getting rid of the new bombsight.  I like the new bombsight far more than the old one.  The new bombsight makes hitting hangers difficult and I would submit that anybody who would choose a bomber over a Jabo aircraft for taking hangers down, regardless of their durability, would be choosing the less efficient method.

[lazs2]

sorry karnak I was using the numeric values you gave in the original post.

seems that if you have the most bombers or players then your country will have the hardest to kill features while those your excess players are milkrunning will be "soft".
lazs

[Shiva]

If you want a simple solution to the problem of Ostweenies driving up and flattening a town, or a field, then what should be considered is establishing a 'You must be this large to attack this target' number for each ground object -- a minimum-damage cutoff. Structures would retain their current damage requirement for destruction, but for each structure you would have a damage minimum -- below that number, damage does not accumulate.

So you could, for example, set up different buildings with different durability -- wooden buildings that could be shot up with anything, brick buildings that would shrug off 37mm rounds but be damaged by anything bigger, and concrete buildings that would laugh at the PzKpfw IVH's 75mm gun, and maybe 100-lb bombs.

Combine this with adding PaKfronts to the fields, towns, and strat targets, and you push the Ostweenies out of terrain levelling and back into air defense, where they should be.

[OSCAR]

**********A-bomb************

[bj229r]

well..whatever the result of all this blabber..there MUST be a way
to make buff pilots have an impact on the game..LOTS of people here cannot ever be effective in a fighter, and the current situation takes away their ability to have an effect on the daily wars. I have to agree the 35k laser-guided eggs were a bit much, but if ya cant hurt bases under 15-20k, (which is the only surviveable alt) and hittin strat targets doesnt REALLY affect enemy, then ALL the full-time buff pilots have been, in effect,  told they are not wanted and can hit the road,  or just fly about to give the AK's more stuff to kill.

[MOSQ]

I love flying buffs. However I find myself JABOing much more often now. Especially on the Pizza map.
I agree that it is possible for buffs to still make a siginificant impact on the game. My personal best with a 3 Lanc formation was 3Fh's down, 1 damaged, and a bunch of ammo, gun emplacements, fuel ect taken out. However that was a very unusual run, and was at only 11K, well below the wind.
My suggestion for an intermediate step that may draw more folks back to buffing, Turn Off the Wind !
Trying to hit anything above 12K, where the wind starts blowing your buff and your bombs around, is just not worth the time and effort of climbing a Lanc to get there. The rewards at the end of the run make JABOing much more fun than High Alt buffing.
Turning off the wind is easy, it keeps all the new bombsight stuff in place, it would  add a little more accuracy to high alt buffing while not returning us to laser guided munitions.

[Sparks]

First Wotan -

The majority of folks enjoy fighter to fighter aircraft.

That is simply wrong and reading your other posts you seem to have a "make the bombers meaningless so us REAL players can have our fun unhindered" agenda going on.

Should the minority of bomber pilots/squads in the main determin how when and where the rest of us want to fly?

 Yes if you majority hotshots don't shoot us down - its called defending strategic targets and could be a very enjoyable and immersive part of the game if done properly.

Karnak you make interesting points but I think a few key things are being overlooked in the current gameplay although  I absolutely agree with your initial statement that the targets are part of whats wrong with the current system.

I also believe there are two other factors making bombing fruitless -
1. Rebuild of city buildings etc by goon meaning bombing of resuppliable targets is a complete waste of time.
2. Mission play as it stands - organised missions can up repeatedly from the same base or can up from damaged bases which gives rise to squad or mission steamrollers taking over bases at a pace which makes bombing pointless.  This is because you take off with a view to bomb a certain feild but by the time you have climbed etc two and sometime three feilds have fallen and suddenly you flight is heading for a useless feild well behind the line of attack.  It should only be possible to launch a major attack from a base whic can support it - i.e one with plenty of supplies.

I can't find a suggestion out of your list though that I completely agree with and thats because I can't see a simple solution.

(Wotan please take note here)
When I take a bomber formation up I'm in it for a while - 20-30 min climb then at least 10 cruise,  a couple of passes and then home - often its a 45 min job to do it right and I think thats how it should be but at the end of it I want to impact the game by affecting the enemy's ability to fight - thats the whole point and was the point of strategic bombing in WW2.  So to me flattening a town to capture a base is ok but ho hum.

This leads me back to an idea I can't let go - the concept that the MA game should be based on usage and supply.  For example an airfield gets supplied fuel at a certain rate - when an aircraft or several take off with full tanks that fuel has to be replaced at the full rate. Under normal circumstances with 100% refinery and supply route the refill rate will replace it quickly.  However bomb the refinery and the refill rate drops - that means people can still take off with full tanks but the feild tanks may gradually or rapidly  empty depending on activity at the feild.  If a mission is upped then the tanks will empty quickly but if defenders take off with 25 or 50% then it will last longer.

At the same time make the bombing of the bunkers / tanks etc on fields affect the field storage not the availability per a/c so half the fuel gone means half the a/c can take full tanks untill they are refilled.

I would not make this country wide however but keep the zone sytem so there is a refinery etc for each zone. I would also overlay minimums so that even if an airfield has all its tanks down and minimum resupply then the feild reverts to what we have now i.e max 25% fuel available / aircraft. (So you could take 100% up to the point when the tanks are empty on feild and then its 25% until they fill again - the number of tanks available to fill on site and the refill rate will determine how many a/c can up with fuel above 25%)

This basic idea can be extended to ammo and troops although ammo and troops could go to zero.

Next I would stop the rebuild of cities and Strat by goon.

For me this addresses all issues:-

1. Bombing now has a purpose - even one mission for one person.

2. It makes the repeated upping of large missions from the same airfield impossible - the usage rate would simply empty the tanks - this would slow the gang bang steam rollers we see going across the MA at the moment.

3. It would keep the furballers happy - up to 100% fuel would usually be available for small numbers of fighters.

4. If goon rebuild is stopped then it becomes more important to defend your strat targets.

As a final point this could all be done with the existing structures:-
Have a zone with a city, refinery, ammo factory etc. . The city controls rebuild time on the refinerys etc as now but with no goon rebuild. The refineries etc  feed the zone feilds via a depot - bomb the depot and the resupply rate is slowed (fewer convoys leave).  All that is needed is to give the tanks and bunkers specific volumes etc and then code the maths for the refill rates and damage variables.

When dedicated bombers can cripple a countries resupply then maybe we'll see how good the hotshot fighter pilots are - in both defending the buffs and bringing them down.

Sparks

[tgnr2001]

Originally posted by Sparks
First Wotan -
  Yes if you majority hotshots don't shoot us down - its called defending strategic targets and could be a very enjoyable and immersive part of the game if done properly.


You tell em Sparks!!!

How about allowing us to put plane factories out of commision with 3 possible effects:

1)  Cost of perk planes doubles until factory rebuilt

2)  Some near-perk planes become perk planes

3)  Historically rare planes availability reduced or eliminated until factories come back up  (also a good incentive to RTB.. you get to keep the plane if you land it)


tgnr

[Octavius]

I wholeheartedly agree with Mino and Kweassa on this one.  The original idea for rearranging the field was to counter laser guided bombers for disabling fighters/bombers in a single pass.  The field needs to be rearranged again in order to encompass this new system of bombing.  

In addition to rearranging, I like Mino's idea of lowering the "wooden" structures amount of poundage required and adding more "targets" to compensate for their weakened strength.  The total amount of poundage could equal roughly the same depending on how things are worked out.  I wouldn't mind seeing more net poundage required to totally knock out an airfield.  

Ex:

3000 lbs per fighter hangar at a field / 3 hangars total at a small field.
Cut the poundage in half to 1500 lbs per hangar / Increase the number of hangars by half giving a total of 6.
The end result is the same amount of poundage required to achieve the destruction of all fighter hangars.

IF the rearrangement of fields were to take place, perhaps we could see a more realistic looking field layout?  Not all fields were built identically I am sure of that.. anyone have pics of a typical WWII field layout?  I like Kweassa's sketch of a possible layout plan.

Duedel:  I also loved level bombing/jabo'ing the depots.  They were huge!  I would like to see each town that size.  

All in all, more ground targets please

oct out

[Wotan]

Sparks I know bombing is boring.......whats your point?

The main isnt a war. Argue for ht to enhance strat, to make larger targets and more dense targets but dont argue the only way a bomber can influence the main is to stop fighters from taking off. Thats not their roll historically and thats not there roll (after 1.10) in AH.

I dont care about 1 bomber pilots fun. He kills the fuel and fhs that stops the fun for far more folks. Jabos and attack planes are designed to do the very thing you want your bomber to do. They do it better (always have) and are a lot more fun to stop. Very rarely does 1 single attack plane impact gameplay the way 1 bomber did prior to 1.1.

Dont gimme crap about killing bombers. They are as easy to kill as killing ants and not much more fun to kill.

I made a detailed suggestion on how the bomber model and an improved strat model could be used to really effect the main with out killing fighter hangers. My suggestion puts bombers in their proper (or as close as can be) roll.

But those who didnt like my suggestion assumed that if bombers were tasked with reducing one countries production to trigger a reset that they would be bored because the rest of the main may ignore them.

You dont want a realistic strat and bomber model. You certainly arent arguing for one. You are the typical Me Me Me Bomber pilot who thinks its his "mission" to stop others from having fun.

There nothing "mysterious" about my motives. I have posted in near 100 of these thread that are started by a bomber pilot who feels his "roll" is unappreciated. My views are clear in everyone. Give bombers the roll they had historically and thats not killing fighter hangers.

If you dont think the majority of folks in the main are in fighters then jump around field to field and see what folks are doing.....the same thing they were doing before 1.1. Upping a fighter and looking for the closest fight.

Instead of taking the time to work through and learn the new model you come here with "now I cant hit the fhs, bombing is ruined". I see others guys bomb and hit what they are aiming for. I've seen fighter hangers destroyed by bombers in 1.10. But wih the formations and new bomb site I would want a little more then just killing a fighter hanger.

[lazs2]

sparks... you appear to realize that you have no purpose without fighters... you also appear to want your limited talent ot be given a lot of weight so that you will be noticed.   You appear to realize that you will be ignored if HTC doesn't make people play with you.

I fly fighters and very rarely have an affect on the "war".   I am not a threat to the strat.   I have no trouble finding people to play with me in the arena.  

What are you having trouble understanding?
lazs

[Shiva]

sparks... you appear to realize that you have no purpose without fighters... you also appear to want your limited talent ot be given a lot of weight so that you will be noticed. You appear to realize that you will be ignored if HTC doesn't make people play with you.

I fly fighters and very rarely have an affect on the "war". I am not a threat to the strat. I have no trouble finding people to play with me in the arena.

During the war, the whole purpose of the bomber offensive was to be "a threat to the strat", as you put it.

I suppose in your ideal simulation, the game world would be filled with furballs within easy flying time of your airfeld -- or, better yet, be able to air-start near one, so you don't have to waste your precious time getting there -- while the occasional robot bomber formation flew overhead so that you could casually exhibit your ability to dynamite fish in a rain barrel whenever you got the urge. Lots of fat, juicy targets on the ground for you to strafe and jabo, and none of those nasty acks shooting back at you to distract you. Oh, and just to make sure that you never have to suffer the psychologically crippling trauma of getting shot down, let's just make all the other fighters robots, too, and have them circle over the airfields where they're easy to get at and never shoot back.

Oh, wait -- that's pretty much the way offline play works. Well, you should happy as a pig in toejam, then, lasz2; I don't see why you need to go online at all.

[popeye]

Seems some want bombers to have an "historic role" in the MA, where nothing else is at all "historic".

[tgnr2001]

Originally posted by lazs2
sparks... you appear to realize that you have no purpose without fighters... you also appear to want your limited talent ot be given a lot of weight so that you will be noticed.   You appear to realize that you will be ignored if HTC doesn't make people play with you.

I fly fighters and very rarely have an affect on the "war".   I am not a threat to the strat.   I have no trouble finding people to play with me in the arena.  

What are you having trouble understanding?
lazs

Ah yes.. an intelligent debate degrades into  condescension  Sounds like you folks can't play nice together.   Go to your rooms

If buffs can't affect fighters, then fighters shouldn't be able to effect buffs.  So let's make buffs bulletproof... let them bomb whatever they want, without any impact on the gameplay, but without fear of accidently stumbling across a fighter jock who obviously has no desire to shoot down a lowly buff and is really looking for some real competition from all these skilled NME fighters and just happened to come across a buff that he shot down quite by accident, not wanting to waste his time on a subclass of AH player   Oh wait.. but then that would cut down on your precious perkies

Or... how about realizing that furballers, base grabbers and eggers can co-exist, all have fun and impact game play if that's what rings their chimes.

Why is it that improving the game for buff pilots automatically means that fighter pilots will suffer irreparable harm?  Would missing a plane or two really make you so sad that you wouldn't want to "play" with your friends?  Would you be vewwy, vewwy sad?

Maybe AH needs a fighter town where furballers can spend hours killing each other without fear of having to "play" with an underclass.  

Hug & Kisses     tgnr

[Shiva]

IF the rearrangement of fields were to take place, perhaps we could see a more realistic looking field layout? Not all fields were built identically I am sure of that.. anyone have pics of a typical WWII field layout? I like Kweassa's sketch of a possible layout plan.

From http://www.bomber-command.info/afl.htm:

"This aerial photograph of Skellingthorpe Airfield was typical of the layout of a WWII Bomber Base.

"The triangle of runways in the centre of the picture allowed take off and landing from a possible six different directions according to operational needs, weather conditions etc.

"The 'frying pan' aircraft dispersals can also be clearly seen around the distant edges of the airfield, thus ensuring, as far as possible, that no aircraft would be an immediate danger to another."



Here's a map of RAF Wickenby, another Bomber Command base; you can see the general similarity to Skellingthorpe:



Here is a map of the Rattlesden bomber field. The page it is from, http://users.cybercity.dk/~nmb5433/rattlesdenaf3.html, has links showing the building layouts at various parts of the outbuilding areas:



A picture of Buckingham AAF in Florida from 1945: