madrebel

Fixing the airwar

145 posts in this topic

Seems there has been a lot of discussions that pretty much all dove tail back to the same root cause, let's talk about that. 

Let's first talk about game theory. Ok let's not talk about game theory as that is a really long conversation however, go read about game theory. Rather than the larger umbrella let's focus on the prevalent drivers of modern games specifically action games meant to simulate war. Even many kids games are governed by these 3 prime movers.

 

Defend and Destroy:

Sounds simple and it is. You have something of value you need to defend, so does your opponent. Usually in video games this game type exists along side mirrored bases so there can be no balance issues.

 

In reality, defend and destroy is at the core of warfare. You're either conquering or trying to not be conquered. You can't rush out conquering too quickly or you risk a counter attack, further, history has shown time and again that you can't just sit behind walls and defend your opponent to death either. There is a balancing of risk here.

 

This game type hasn't been extremely popular in video gaming history in the action genre. I'd argue RTS games all function over top a core DnD frame work though. Various action games have had this game type but i'd argue it hasn't been until payload style DnD was introduced that DnD became quite popular in action games.

 

Capture and hold:

Best thing about the really powerful theories, they're so simple. Much like defend and destroy, the simplicity is in the name. Here, you capture something, and have to hold on to it. Whatever 'it' is that needs to be captured doesn't matter the underlining driver here is 'it' is transient. 'it' may be owned by blue team to start, or it may be owned by nobody, but 'it' is designed to be fought over.  

 

Man with the ball, kill the carrier, the point of those games is to capture 'it' and hold it as long as you can. That is one version. Another would be more object oriented, something specific that needs to be accomplished and maintained beneath some larger driving force. I'll add to this in a second.

 

In real war, CNH exists. Special forces was more or less invented to exploit CNH to its highest degree. The D-Day landing were preceded by one of the largest most elaborate capture and hold mission plans in history. In our game, depots and the requirement of holding certain ones before other things cap - that's CNH gameplay.

 

I think we're missing a big piece here though, i think AFVs should have CNH objectives. roads, bridges, etc could be targets for AFV flanks and or para drops.

 

Capture the Flag:

The old favorite. Again, so simple, you must capture the flag. Now, many iterations of this but for the most part you must get the enemy  flag, typically from the enemy base, and bring it back to your base. the two main flavors that i know of then go

1) you can't capture unless your flag is on the stand

2) you can capture regardless

 

CTF is actually DnD combined with CNH - points being the over laying driver. 

 

In real war, any invasion or offensive is by nature capture the flag. You have a plan to do w/e, you have X assets to employ, and to do so you need to do xyz etc etc. You can't just throw that away though, you need forward command, field command, field bases, assets, logistics, etc. All that goes into accomplishing a war objective that if you boil it down - is just a very loud and bloody game of CTF.

 

If CTF is in fact DnD + CNH .... what is missing in the game?

 

We need to talk a second about aircraft and what they did to war. Until WW1 you're only real ability to strike at the enemy over their lines was perhaps spies and super long range artillery. Planes changed all that. Now your rear assets and logistics were vulnerable, as were your line positions. Once this became clear, military strategy adjusted. Now you had to deploy your assets differently both to protect but also to hide them. This would be doubly true for planes and air fields too. You wanted as many as you could get, not so much to put planes on all of them but to give you options to keep your planes in range of the fight but just far enough back that they wouldn't be vulnerable to artillery fire or other planes.

 

We all good so far? Risk vs reward and simple mechanics.

 

What do we have in game now? On the ground you have global CTF, the germans need to capture X amount of the map before triggering victory [censored] to the allies. below this, each AO is a smaller CTF objective beneath the global. At the AO level, you have elements of both DnD and CnH. You need to defend your FBs and mobile spawns while attempting to CnH town objectives that ultimately allow for the final CP to be captured and the flag flips for the win. pretty good at the core. plenty of things to flesh out but still, pretty good.

 

What about the airwar? Well, planes can't capture anything and shouldn't really be allowed to ever do that as it would just be silly. By nature then, planes can't participate in anything with capture in the name so CTF and CNH ... out. Can't do it. This leaves only Defend and Destroy as an option for planes. 

 

Let's pause here and inject some history:

The Battle of Britain - quite literally the opening rounds of this battle specifically and intently targeted the RaF's facilities that were within range. The LW inflicted heavy damage and it has been written in multiple places that the RaF was on the ropes.

 

Let's put that shoe on the other foot. The 8th airforce later returned the favor many times over. The 8th airforce specifically targeted LW factories, LW bases, and later ordered that all LW fighters be chased down and killed. If you look at the statistics, the 8th airforce destroyed more planes on the ground than in the air.

 

History shows that planes, their bases, and the logistical back ends required to produce them are all EXTREMELY high value targets/assets.

 

So what of the air war here? Where is that war? We know planes can't capture, so 2 of the holy trinity can't even be participated in. We have one tiny element of DnD with factory bombing but there really isn't a compelling reason to engage in that activity in game as the risk grossly out weighs the reward. further, this is the second longest mission type in game with DD/farmile driving being longer.

 

ok, we have one 'target' type, that has a very poor risk/reward ratio, and takes a long time to accomplish. the only other thing planes can do, is directly kill ground targets. oh, and you have to scan gray skies that blend into a grey horizon for grey dots.

 

if you kill ground targets too much or too well though, you get a reaction from the ground guys who are still poorly armed for this pest.

 

If you add another DnD target that is of high value, that must be both protected and attacked, you'll pull more of those planes away from the ground guys as they will have to defend something or attack something else if they want to have an asset as close as possible to the fight so as to expediently bomb squishies. With fewer planes actively shooting at squishies, you get fewer complaints from squishies as less of them get squished. 

 

We need bombable air fields. How though? Because it could suck. 

1) damage must scale with aircraft population, not global population. most people don't fly, most can't bomb for [censored]. further, even with gross numbers imbalance on the ground seems the allies always have air superiority. if damage scaling can't be delivered ON DAY ONE do not under any circumstances deliver bombable airfields. if it can't be tied directly to pilot population, there needs to be some other scaling function.

 

2) it needs to be hard to do. it should be nigh on impossible to shut down more than 1 air field at any given time. there should be a fast and steady average repair rate that automagically happens as even if you allow players to participate in this, you're now creating a really crappy job for someone. My gut feeling is somewhere between 8-16 he-111 bomb loads of direct hits to knock out an AF is a good place to start the discussion. I feel that volume should need to be maintained every hour too. To knock an AF out and keep it knocked out should require a lot of concentrated effort. why is this level of difficulty acceptable when it clearly isn't for RDP? because a player could run 4 of these missions in the same time as one factory run and if successful, have an immediate felt reaction in game. 

 

3) I'd like to see 4 damaged states too where each state removes 1/4 of the AA protection. Final knocked out state has zero AA guns. Perhaps every 15 minutes for each state to automatically repair? So a completely dead AF will be 1/4 operational in 15m.

 

4) if in the next iteration of TOEs/supply or w/e we're calling it still has flags for planes, the flags deployed at the AF when knocked out get bounced to training. With town supply, planes cannot re-appear in the list once the AF has been knocked out until it is 100% operational. I'm fine with RTB always working even to a knocked out AF if that is the simple route but ideally RTB to an AF with no supply should be at least a 4 hour resupply, preferably 7. 

 

Now there are other things that need fixing. We need complete weapon sets, with tier progression, for both sides. We also need Italian fighters. Those new toys though, don't fix the underlying problem. You have weapons in game that historically had many mission types yet we've got funneled down into one single mission type. we have a level bomber, with nothing to level bomb. in order to have a realistic ww2 simulation, we need lots of other much larger level bombers. they too will need level bomber targets to bomb.

 

Making the sky blue again, would be amazing ... but ... still only one thing to do in game for planes ... shoot squishies.  

 

I'm sure one thing that will be said is "but players don't want to fly more than 5m". Oh? Players used to do this all the time. Players on the ground still drive more than 5m to get a tank to battle. a matilda could take 20+ minutes ... and players do this all day ere day. Don't use this BS reason, it holds no water. when the airwar in this game was healthiest you flew from where ever you could find a plane. At map start the flight from Monchen to Antwerp airspace is less than 10 minutes. Its just so two faced to say "pilots can't be asked to fly for more than 5 minutes" when everything else in the game takes more time. 

 

making airfileds vulnerable would be one of the best things to happen to the ground game in the history of this video game.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting food for thought, thanks for taking the time to write it, it'll be interesting to hear what other people say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post.

FWIW, you CAN knock out AF AA AI with bombs and guns, should you wish to set up a free vulching zone :)

It *would* be neat if we could knock out fuel and repair facilities too. OTOH, a reduction of fuel available need also be tied in to number of a/c spawned, so that effects are cumulative. Aircraft (in here) perform better with less fuel, so a minor reduction would actually work to the damaged party's favor - unless we have cumulative fuel reduction. I.e. crates take off with 100% fuel until whoops AF is out of fuel. Same with ammo of course.

I personally agree 100% with your call for longer flight times - I'm not liking the airstrip PPO concept at all, and find TTC much too short already with the current AF setup. The PPO thing will likely increase deckmonkey AQ, and I fear that the Allies will benefit the most from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know you 'can' but historically with HE being what it has been, targeting AI was best done by fast AFVs or paratroops. hopefully scotsman's audit makes 'hard' bunkers a bit more workable as targets but - those installations are intended to be hardish.

 

the thought really is to blend reality with something that is a fun game mechanic. precision bombing wasn't a thing in ww2, bombers lined up in 3-4 wing elements with ... iirc 4-24 per group depending on the airforce with the 8th and bomber command running at times multiple groups in a big flight ... all dropping. the effect of that carpet bombing ended up knocking out lots of individual gun emplacements and w/e else. the analog then needs to translate the reality to something we can manage.

lots of player effort with only reasonable precision to produce a net effect.

 

8 x 111/Wellington loads is a good place to start.

 

However, what happens when we have heavies and tier progression? is 8 enough then? Do we need to have a flat +x% per tier as bombers progress? idk, maybe. PPO AFs are neither here nor there. There is 'some' justification to have them but there is a long list of AFs missing and the current team appear to understand how to change things on the terrain again. i'd much rather see the NAO as an example have some more AFs added along with all the other places that could use more. My bombable AF idea works better with more AFs as this will limit the negative impact potential even further. instead of 3-5m, is 6-8m at the next nearest AF all that unreasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmbm said:

I personally agree 100% with your call for longer flight times - I'm not liking the airstrip PPO concept at all, and find TTC much too short already with the current AF setup. The PPO thing will likely increase deckmonkey AQ, and I fear that the Allies will benefit the most from it.

I concur...Good post Madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, madrebel said:

My gut feeling is somewhere between 8-16 he-111 bomb loads of direct hits to knock out an AF

Borrowing from the past... (fine,  stealing)
144 bombs to take out the runways (any bomb size, so anyone could participate, even stuka and blen I pilots could participate)
AF will use RP to self repair in 70 minutes unless bombing is constant enough to offset the repairs.
Players can if they chose use engineers to accelerate the repair, constant bombing though is of course going to negate the repair operation
so you have to stop the bombing 1st.

To facilitate that, AF gets a damaged state model where the entire square KM becomes a rubbled mess you couldnt even taxi across
craters, crap strewn everywhere all AI down etc, maybe even throw in some hulked plane models for looks.
The physical state of the AF is what closes it simply because you cant even roll a plane across it

It does not encompass fuel or ammo, or individual spawn types (fighter / bomber)
It does not incorporate your progressive damage idea (which is good)
But it is a simple start

Edited by merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, madrebel said:

Seems there has been a lot of discussions that pretty much all dove tail back to the same root cause, let's talk about that. 

Let's first talk about game theory. Ok let's not talk about game theory as that is a really long conversation however, go read about game theory. Rather than the larger umbrella let's focus on the prevalent drivers of modern games specifically action games meant to simulate war. Even many kids games are governed by these 3 prime movers.

 

Defend and Destroy:

Sounds simple and it is. You have something of value you need to defend, so does your opponent. Usually in video games this game type exists along side mirrored bases so there can be no balance issues.

 

In reality, defend and destroy is at the core of warfare. You're either conquering or trying to not be conquered. You can't rush out conquering too quickly or you risk a counter attack, further, history has shown time and again that you can't just sit behind walls and defend your opponent to death either. There is a balancing of risk here.

 

This game type hasn't been extremely popular in video gaming history in the action genre. I'd argue RTS games all function over top a core DnD frame work though. Various action games have had this game type but i'd argue it hasn't been until payload style DnD was introduced that DnD became quite popular in action games.

 

Capture and hold:

Best thing about the really powerful theories, they're so simple. Much like defend and destroy, the simplicity is in the name. Here, you capture something, and have to hold on to it. Whatever 'it' is that needs to be captured doesn't matter the underlining driver here is 'it' is transient. 'it' may be owned by blue team to start, or it may be owned by nobody, but 'it' is designed to be fought over.  

 

Man with the ball, kill the carrier, the point of those games is to capture 'it' and hold it as long as you can. That is one version. Another would be more object oriented, something specific that needs to be accomplished and maintained beneath some larger driving force. I'll add to this in a second.

 

In real war, CNH exists. Special forces was more or less invented to exploit CNH to its highest degree. The D-Day landing were preceded by one of the largest most elaborate capture and hold mission plans in history. In our game, depots and the requirement of holding certain ones before other things cap - that's CNH gameplay.

 

I think we're missing a big piece here though, i think AFVs should have CNH objectives. roads, bridges, etc could be targets for AFV flanks and or para drops.

 

Capture the Flag:

The old favorite. Again, so simple, you must capture the flag. Now, many iterations of this but for the most part you must get the enemy  flag, typically from the enemy base, and bring it back to your base. the two main flavors that i know of then go

1) you can't capture unless your flag is on the stand

2) you can capture regardless

 

CTF is actually DnD combined with CNH - points being the over laying driver. 

 

In real war, any invasion or offensive is by nature capture the flag. You have a plan to do w/e, you have X assets to employ, and to do so you need to do xyz etc etc. You can't just throw that away though, you need forward command, field command, field bases, assets, logistics, etc. All that goes into accomplishing a war objective that if you boil it down - is just a very loud and bloody game of CTF.

 

If CTF is in fact DnD + CNH .... what is missing in the game?

 

We need to talk a second about aircraft and what they did to war. Until WW1 you're only real ability to strike at the enemy over their lines was perhaps spies and super long range artillery. Planes changed all that. Now your rear assets and logistics were vulnerable, as were your line positions. Once this became clear, military strategy adjusted. Now you had to deploy your assets differently both to protect but also to hide them. This would be doubly true for planes and air fields too. You wanted as many as you could get, not so much to put planes on all of them but to give you options to keep your planes in range of the fight but just far enough back that they wouldn't be vulnerable to artillery fire or other planes.

 

We all good so far? Risk vs reward and simple mechanics.

 

What do we have in game now? On the ground you have global CTF, the germans need to capture X amount of the map before triggering victory [censored] to the allies. below this, each AO is a smaller CTF objective beneath the global. At the AO level, you have elements of both DnD and CnH. You need to defend your FBs and mobile spawns while attempting to CnH town objectives that ultimately allow for the final CP to be captured and the flag flips for the win. pretty good at the core. plenty of things to flesh out but still, pretty good.

 

What about the airwar? Well, planes can't capture anything and shouldn't really be allowed to ever do that as it would just be silly. By nature then, planes can't participate in anything with capture in the name so CTF and CNH ... out. Can't do it. This leaves only Defend and Destroy as an option for planes. 

 

Let's pause here and inject some history:

The Battle of Britain - quite literally the opening rounds of this battle specifically and intently targeted the RaF's facilities that were within range. The LW inflicted heavy damage and it has been written in multiple places that the RaF was on the ropes.

 

Let's put that shoe on the other foot. The 8th airforce later returned the favor many times over. The 8th airforce specifically targeted LW factories, LW bases, and later ordered that all LW fighters be chased down and killed. If you look at the statistics, the 8th airforce destroyed more planes on the ground than in the air.

 

History shows that planes, their bases, and the logistical back ends required to produce them are all EXTREMELY high value targets/assets.

 

So what of the air war here? Where is that war? We know planes can't capture, so 2 of the holy trinity can't even be participated in. We have one tiny element of DnD with factory bombing but there really isn't a compelling reason to engage in that activity in game as the risk grossly out weighs the reward. further, this is the second longest mission type in game with DD/farmile driving being longer.

 

ok, we have one 'target' type, that has a very poor risk/reward ratio, and takes a long time to accomplish. the only other thing planes can do, is directly kill ground targets. oh, and you have to scan gray skies that blend into a grey horizon for grey dots.

 

if you kill ground targets too much or too well though, you get a reaction from the ground guys who are still poorly armed for this pest.

 

If you add another DnD target that is of high value, that must be both protected and attacked, you'll pull more of those planes away from the ground guys as they will have to defend something or attack something else if they want to have an asset as close as possible to the fight so as to expediently bomb squishies. With fewer planes actively shooting at squishies, you get fewer complaints from squishies as less of them get squished. 

 

We need bombable air fields. How though? Because it could suck. 

1) damage must scale with aircraft population, not global population. most people don't fly, most can't bomb for [censored]. further, even with gross numbers imbalance on the ground seems the allies always have air superiority. if damage scaling can't be delivered ON DAY ONE do not under any circumstances deliver bombable airfields. if it can't be tied directly to pilot population, there needs to be some other scaling function.

 

2) it needs to be hard to do. it should be nigh on impossible to shut down more than 1 air field at any given time. there should be a fast and steady average repair rate that automagically happens as even if you allow players to participate in this, you're now creating a really crappy job for someone. My gut feeling is somewhere between 8-16 he-111 bomb loads of direct hits to knock out an AF is a good place to start the discussion. I feel that volume should need to be maintained every hour too. To knock an AF out and keep it knocked out should require a lot of concentrated effort. why is this level of difficulty acceptable when it clearly isn't for RDP? because a player could run 4 of these missions in the same time as one factory run and if successful, have an immediate felt reaction in game. 

 

3) I'd like to see 4 damaged states too where each state removes 1/4 of the AA protection. Final knocked out state has zero AA guns. Perhaps every 15 minutes for each state to automatically repair? So a completely dead AF will be 1/4 operational in 15m.

 

4) if in the next iteration of TOEs/supply or w/e we're calling it still has flags for planes, the flags deployed at the AF when knocked out get bounced to training. With town supply, planes cannot re-appear in the list once the AF has been knocked out until it is 100% operational. I'm fine with RTB always working even to a knocked out AF if that is the simple route but ideally RTB to an AF with no supply should be at least a 4 hour resupply, preferably 7. 

 

Now there are other things that need fixing. We need complete weapon sets, with tier progression, for both sides. We also need Italian fighters. Those new toys though, don't fix the underlying problem. You have weapons in game that historically had many mission types yet we've got funneled down into one single mission type. we have a level bomber, with nothing to level bomb. in order to have a realistic ww2 simulation, we need lots of other much larger level bombers. they too will need level bomber targets to bomb.

 

Making the sky blue again, would be amazing ... but ... still only one thing to do in game for planes ... shoot squishies.  

 

I'm sure one thing that will be said is "but players don't want to fly more than 5m". Oh? Players used to do this all the time. Players on the ground still drive more than 5m to get a tank to battle. a matilda could take 20+ minutes ... and players do this all day ere day. Don't use this BS reason, it holds no water. when the airwar in this game was healthiest you flew from where ever you could find a plane. At map start the flight from Monchen to Antwerp airspace is less than 10 minutes. Its just so two faced to say "pilots can't be asked to fly for more than 5 minutes" when everything else in the game takes more time. 

 

making airfileds vulnerable would be one of the best things to happen to the ground game in the history of this video game.

@XOOM and crew, read and digest this post. Engage with madrebel. This guy seems to understand the core gameplay concepts that need serious consideration 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Borrowing from the past... (fine,  stealing)
144 bombs to take out the runways (any bomb size, so anyone could participate, even stuka and blen I pilots could participate)
AF will use RP to self repair in 70 minutes unless bombing is constant enough to offset the repairs.
Players can if they chose use engineers to accelerate the repair, constant bombing though is of course going to negate the repair operation
so you have to stop the bombing 1st.

To facilitate that, AF gets a damaged state model where the entire square KM becomes a rubbled mess you couldnt even taxi across
craters, crap strewn everywhere all AI down etc, maybe even throw in some hulked plane models for looks.
The physical state of the AF is what closes it simply because you cant even roll a plane across it

It does not encompass fuel or ammo, or individual spawn types (fighter / bomber)
It does not incorporate your progressive damage idea (which is good)
But it is a simple start

perhaps bomb count would be better than bomb load. where this could be problematic is if a particular plane had a significant numerical payload of small bombs. we don't currently have these loadouts nor the ability to alter said loadouts however if we did, we'd have a massive problem.

 

Do-17z max payload = 20 x 50KG granted we don't ahve this bomber but this bomber would technically be superior to the 111 while having 50% less payload. Further still, the 111 had a 32 x SC50 loadout. This option would be default superior to the heavier internal 8 x 250 loadout. not a bad idea really and ultimately simple to control as CRS manages the loadouts. 

 

as long as it takes roughly the same amount of human beings doing roughly the same job with roughly the same skill requirement on both sides then we're on the right track. bomb count could be that thing. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<puts on pedantic smart-[censored] hat>

Your analogy to CTF is super off. CTF is about moving into enemy territory, securing control an asset, and bringing that asset back into friendly territory. The closest analogues irl are intelligence missions to steal information, prototypes, plans, important equipment, etc. or to secure intelligence assets that are threatened, such as spies or informants.

Capture the Flag is always a mobile flag transitioning between owned territory; capturing a static flag is nothing more than CnH.

<takes off hat to talk about things that actually matter>

 

Excellent write-up! I'm a bit surprised you didn't touch more on RDP bombing, as in its current form it doesn't apply itself well to the game design you laid out. You mentioned risk vs reward but didn't extend it to game design itself.

For example, for DnD to apply to factory bombing, players must be able to both defend and destroy. Currently it is extremely difficult to near impossible to catch bombers on RDP raids even with AWS because the bomber could be in a huge square at any altitude. There is no defending that, only destroying.

That actually ties into this write-up as well: by referencing DnD, you imply that defense will be involved. With the current way things are, it's entirely possible to bomb an airfield with no defense involved unless there are players at multiple altitudes watching for it. The requirement of constant bombardment helps some because that limits the altitude any given bomber can reach as they will need to spawn as close as safely possible in order to maintain volume of fire.

 

I have a recommendation currently out there that's for implementing radar stations that could fix this, especially if planes within a certain distance of any three radar stations could have their rough altitude triangulated (not a part of the current proposal, but could help with RDP).

This would also introduce more targets for the air game: blow up radar stations to allow for an easier time to get past them, as well as allowing for defense to protect them (smaller target typically means needing to bomb at lower altitude for better accuracy).

Combining all of this together could very well spell out a way forward for a type of "Air Game 2.0", which focuses more on bombing radar stations and airfields to more safely operate, and fighters escorting those bombers, than it does CAS over towns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduce the number of AFs. Much effort to take out one AF with bombs is a waste of time if the next AF is one flight-minute away, e.g. Wiltz-Bertrix AFs too close to each other. Same with Etain-MontfaconAFs. Or Vitry/Seclin/Lille AFs way too close.

Edited by mwittman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 flight minute = KMs of combat air space we don't currently have. 

 

step one has to be extremely difficult so the players get a taste but don't OD. the first time 'bombable objects' were tried the execution was extremely poor here with thresholds set WAY too low and or, skirting just wasn't considered (most likely). when we the players attempt to exploit it in realtime and we find the effort too herculean, then adjust it downward VERY slowly until equilibrium is found. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, chaoswzkd said:

Excellent write-up! I'm a bit surprised you didn't touch more on RDP bombing, as in its current form it doesn't apply itself well to the game design you laid out. You mentioned risk vs reward but didn't extend it to game design itself.

For example, for DnD to apply to factory bombing, players must be able to both defend and destroy. Currently it is extremely difficult to near impossible to catch bombers on RDP raids even with AWS because the bomber could be in a huge square at any altitude. There is no defending that, only destroying.

That actually ties into this write-up as well: by referencing DnD, you imply that defense will be involved. With the current way things are, it's entirely possible to bomb an airfield with no defense involved unless there are players at multiple altitudes watching for it. The requirement of constant bombardment helps some because that limits the altitude any given bomber can reach as they will need to spawn as close as safely possible in order to maintain volume of fire.

 

I have a recommendation currently out there that's for implementing radar stations that could fix this, especially if planes within a certain distance of any three radar stations could have their rough altitude triangulated (not a part of the current proposal, but could help with RDP).

This would also introduce more targets for the air game: blow up radar stations to allow for an easier time to get past them, as well as allowing for defense to protect them (smaller target typically means needing to bomb at lower altitude for better accuracy).

Combining all of this together could very well spell out a way forward for a type of "Air Game 2.0", which focuses more on bombing radar stations and airfields to more safely operate, and fighters escorting those bombers, than it does CAS over towns.

i've written up RDP already but ... to properly do RDP you need to re-write some backend stuff significantly. it just isn't feasible to expand on RDP all that much and net any real benefit from the time spent until you can really do it right.

Adding a tactically strategic bombable target theoretically is simpler to do and adds new gameplay to an element of this game that hasn't had any updates in awhile and sets the stage for well, radar stations and other bombable targets. these new targets in theory alleviate air quake without actually adding anything else to the ground weapon set - although keep doing that too cause if nothing else its cool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmbm said:

 

I personally agree 100% with your call for longer flight times - I'm not liking the airstrip PPO concept at all, and find TTC much too short already with the current AF setup. The PPO thing will likely increase deckmonkey AQ, and I fear that the Allies will benefit the most from it.

Not if said PPO is destroyable. Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, madrebel said:

perhaps bomb count would be better than bomb load. where this could be problematic is if a particular plane had a significant numerical payload of small bombs. we don't currently have these loadouts nor the ability to alter said loadouts however if we did, we'd have a massive problem.

That is true, but if that situation would arise you could possibly address is while keeping the original mechanic
by giving bombs under a certain size an ID of some sort and have them count as 0.50 or 0.25 hits or something like that
FMS's had something similar in that they took 2 satchels or 60 HE rounds or a combo of 30 HE and 1 satchel.

So i think we could adjust it as needed to accommodate future unit additions, or could even just do it that way now from the beginning actually.
Class 1 bombs count as 1 hit, class 2 bombs count as fraction etc (like blen 1's 40lb or stuka 50kg bombs) Still lets the lower rank guys flying stuff with small bombs participate.

Bomb count alleviates disparity in bomb designs etc, in this particular situation anyways, it worked well in the past, so maybe could work well here?
Some things should of course take advantage of the bomb's output itself, but maybe not AF's, get more people of more ranks in more planes doing it.

It's probably what they should have looked at doing when the original FB's could be bombed instead of simply removing bombs
which limited options

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When something really really counts, people will plan, strategize and group up..... (i.e. factory bombing that does affect supply). This is where the fun is....chums on comms, working together, success or failure still engaging...etc...

I don't factory bomb....because of the opposite of the above.

I do CAS with the HE 111 (certain death usually) when targets are close. I will fly longer distances when it really really seems to count for CAS.

What has this to do with the thread?

However it works, I would enjoy bombing an AF, while having fighter support and even ground support to ensure the target (that really really counts) is not workable.

Some, maybe most, pilots love the air to air jousting (i.e. the kill, the chase etc.. all good too) I do a bit, but what like more is having an effect on the ground game, directly and yes indirectly (i.e. denying allied bombers their target, hitting ab of et's and ei as they are defending or capping....call me unheroic ;) ). So for me, having reasons other than factory bombing (unless they change it) or determining who is the better fighter pilot etc (me being a LTAP) is a welcome addition. There could be some fierce battles for AF protection/defence I would think.

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bmbm said:

Nice post.

FWIW, you CAN knock out AF AA AI with bombs and guns, should you wish to set up a free vulching zone :)

It *would* be neat if we could knock out fuel and repair facilities too. OTOH, a reduction of fuel available need also be tied in to number of a/c spawned, so that effects are cumulative. Aircraft (in here) perform better with less fuel, so a minor reduction would actually work to the damaged party's favor - unless we have cumulative fuel reduction. I.e. crates take off with 100% fuel until whoops AF is out of fuel. Same with ammo of course.

I personally agree 100% with your call for longer flight times - I'm not liking the airstrip PPO concept at all, and find TTC much too short already with the current AF setup. The PPO thing will likely increase deckmonkey AQ, and I fear that the Allies will benefit the most from it.

LOL u serious with the knocking out the AI AAA ? ur plane won't even get close enough to bomb anything,  I got shot down twice over a town by AI AAA today while I was flying and I wasn't low either. A town not a AF with tons more AI AAA then a town.

The Air strip PPO is fighters only and limited and it still takes a player to run a truck from an AF to a desirable position , which might not be that easy to find so patience is required.  Also do you think the other side would not once found shut it down , bomb it or keep a few fighters over it , also once found you might have INF over it , I'm sure some will be brave enough to run one Truck and one INF soldier to shut it down. 

Remember you only spawn planes there nothing else .

But sure poo puh  the idea . 

That is why AF need to be strategic targets .

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dre21 said:

LOL u serious with the knocking out the AI AAA ?

Like I said, it CAN be done - but yeah, at a cost.

Exqueeze me for having an opinion wrt to PPO, or anything else for that matter. It’s mine to have and I don’t expect anyone to share it. Proof is in the pudding. All I’m saying is that I see more rather obvious problems than benefits with the concept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please enlighten me and tell me the problems!  

Don't just say u see problems and not elaborate on them.

I think I put my pros down why we should have it. After all it would be player driven. Hell you have a hard time finding someone to run Frus,  so now you 1st have to find a dedicated pilot to run a Truck 2st instead if sitting in a cockpit. Sure you have an opinion but elaborate on them nor not come here and say I see problems with the idea.

I see none , none whatsoever, just like I see no problems why AF , RR stations and Ports all should be targets for Bombers and they should effect the war overall once destroyed in one fashion or another. Be it supply , harder to take off or leave port, or a dwindle in the Spawn pool ( which might not be a great idea but I threw it out there).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal for the Mobile Airstrip PPO (MAPPO) is to get more pilots in the air. Secondary goal (or consequence) is to shorten Time To Combat (TTC) since (some) pilots apparently grovel about having to fly from AFs all of 4-10 min distant from the AO. 

My first objection is that pilots who don’t want to invest 4-10 min on ingress will (likely) not be able to spawn at the PPO, but can only rearm/repair there. So the first sortie will anyway be from distant AFs - ie no gain. 

Secondly, I predict that not-so-ace pilots will find it pretty demanding to land and takeoff in the rough, thus the MAPPO won’t work for them either - for the most part. Thus you will probably see the experienced pilots using the MAPPO more than the newbs.

Thirdly, some a/c are better suited for rough landings and takeoffs than others: Hurricanes, Spitfires, FWs and Hawks; whereas 109s especially are less endowed with wide-set landing gear. Thus you will likely see a bias toward the Allies in this regard.

Fourthly, the likely short distance to AOs which is the MAPPOs raison d’etre will likely increase low-altitude flying and give less targets for the interdiction interceptor but all the more to already insufficient AA gunners. If you thought AQ was bad already (which is debatable) wait and see what the MAPPO brings.

The MAPPO will likely not cease ops from the regular AFs but beside that the effects are mostly detrimental to a healthy air war IMHO inasmuch that it reinforces the already low alt environment, again something that favors the Allies.

MAPPO is subject to vulching (which is good/bad depending on your POV), inf/tank/AA camping and destruction - as it should be. This will likely lead to sour grapes and less use of the feature - effectively ”forcing” pilots to suffer long return flights or self-induced waste to minimize TTC as of currently. This too will likely lead to small violin concertos on the score ”why didn’t you defend my airstrip; now I have to fly forever; I lost my goldarned plane and all my points to an ATR, etc”.

And lastly, you need someone to set the darn thing and preferably a few bodies to protect it - i.e more chores, less bodies in the AO.

This is but my own personal opinion. Now you may list the pro’s. The only redeeming factor IMO is that the location of the PPO is (temporarily) less obvious than the AF, and that some areas of the map will be somewhat less of a blank when e.g Antwerp, Brussels and Berry falls.

Edited by bmbm
Spelling duh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i fully agree with bmbm on this. ppo airfields aren't the answer the air war needs. my suggestions may not be either mind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bmbm go into the suggestion forum and read AFFMS all the pros are listed there. That post was up way before all these posts sprung up . And it actually sprung to life after I bumped it after CRS asked a FB question about forward airfields , BTW I like AFFMS a lot better then MAPPO :)D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bmbm said:

Thirdly, some a/c are better suited for rough landings and takeoffs than others: Hurricanes, Spitfires, FWs and Hawks; whereas 109s especially are less endowed with wide-set landing gear. Thus you will likely see a bias toward the Allies in this regard.

Fourthly, the likely short distance to AOs which is the MAPPOs raison d’etre will likely increase low-altitude flying and give less targets for the interdiction interceptor but all the more to already insufficient AA gunners. If you thought AQ was bad already (which is debatable) wait and see what the MAPPO brings.

The MAPPO will likely not cease ops from the regular AFs but beside that the effects are mostly detrimental to a healthy air war IMHO inasmuch that it reinforces the already low alt environment, again something that favors the Allies.

MAPPO is subject to vulching (which is good/bad depending on your POV), inf/tank/AA camping and destruction - as it should be. This will likely lead to sour grapes and less use of the feature - effectively ”forcing” pilots to suffer long return flights or self-induced waste to minimize TTC as of currently. This too will likely lead to small violin concertos on the score ”why didn’t you defend my airstrip; now I have to fly forever; I lost my goldarned plane and all my points to an ATR, etc”.

And lastly, you need someone to set the darn thing and preferably a few bodies to protect it - i.e more chores, less bodies in the AO.

This is but my own personal opinion. Now you may list the pro’s. The only redeeming factor IMO is that the location of the PPO is (temporarily) less obvious than the AF, and that some areas of the map will be somewhat less of a blank when e.g Antwerp, Brussels and Berry falls.

the 109 splayed gear and the inherent toe angle issue i've read were better managed from crappy runways. the reason given was dirt and grass didnt have the same bite allowing the tires to slide/skid instead of dig in on that odd toe angle. it sounded logical and if true then 109s should be better off grass/dirt and more difficult to manage off hard pack/concrete strips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that thread and it lists ”more targets” (and more dilution) as its prime proposition. Fine, but you will also likely have to live with the consequences I listed - and you will likely not be able to spawn there, only repair/rearm. 

Just stating the obvious, not intended as criticism - do keep the suggestions coming. And who knows, it may be a roaring success: the proof is in the pudding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, madrebel said:

the 109 splayed gear and the inherent toe angle issue i've read were better managed from crappy runways. the reason given was dirt and grass didnt have the same bite allowing the tires to slide/skid instead of dig in on that odd toe angle. it sounded logical and if true then 109s should be better off grass/dirt and more difficult to manage off hard pack/concrete strips.

Could be. Try it in our terrain and on roads, and see where it gets you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in game i don't ever recall the 109s toe angle issues being modeled at all. i have personally seen a 100% legit 109E3 land on concrete in Everett Washington and the Pilot didn't seem to have a single issue landing or taxiing. Luckily I got to see this 109E3 fly along side the only airworthy 100% legit 190 too. Was amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.