• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
madrebel

Fixing the airwar

145 posts in this topic

54 minutes ago, bmbm said:

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.

Kinda like we live with PPO, FMS and all the other stuff am I right?  Ever wonder why it's so hard to find Tankers in game ? I give you the ML placed ninja out of the box FRU. 

I'm not saying take stuff out , I'm advocating add more stuff to the game then tweak it . 

Sure there are always consequences to added new stuff . Ohhh BTW read *My Log Book by Gunther Rall* you will notice that most Fliegerstaffeln took off on fields  on search and destroy missions and not on Airstrips like we have in game . 

It's still and would be a player placed PPO and with that if none want to do it then no  Forward Air. It's that simple .

And if more Vets use it maybe they can clear the sky for us Bombers without getting shot down before we even get to target . Let's be honest it doesn't take much to knock out a JU or a 111 , not so much with the DB7 or Havoc , heck hardly anyone ever flies the Blen cause it's like the 111 , unless it gets suicide by certain players over and over then the Blen gets used , cause there are plenty in the spawn pool.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a (signed) copy of Rall’s book. Good read. Russian a/d infrastructure didn’t compare well to the West, hence the need for provisional LGs. Even so that didn’t automatically translate to short TTC. You will also find that LW during BOF only moved their infrastructure up around end of May iirc, until then they flew out of Germany.

Edited by bmbm
grammar duh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

Sure there are always consequences to added new stuff . Ohhh BTW read *My Log Book by Gunther Rall* you will notice that most Fliegerstaffeln took off on fields  on search and destroy missions and not on Airstrips like we have in game . 

couple things

1) you wouldn't waste time or resources leveling a strip for planes that didn't require them. the seabees were noted here in that they came up with a very fast 'hack' that allowed for semi hard air strips to be laid down very quickly. essentially they laid down corrugated sheeting then covered it with dirt and leveled that out and it worked great. do keep in mind that your modern concept of what 'aviation means' would be completely foreign to aviators at the time. the 'airodrome' with large concrete runways would be an amazing exception to the average pilot. remember, ww2 took place less than 40 years after the first powered flight in history. ww2 literally wrote the book on modern combat aviation. a 'proper' contemporary airfield then is really any mostly flat field with no trees. radio would be on a stack of likely empty ammo boxes or just sitting in a truck bed. the chance of having a proper 'building' wouldn't have been likely unless you were a multi engine bomber pilot. 

 

2) 109 pilots preferred grass/dirt runways because it allowed the splayed tires to slide instead of dig. SOP then for any and all 109 units would prefer grass/dirt runways. to add to this, Recce 109s likely would have been the only 109s to routinely take off from hard packed runways on account of the 2x300l drop tanks under the wings. All other 109s were limited to at most 2 x gun pods or a single center disposable store. this kept their all up weight well within the context of what a grass/dirt runway could handle. Even then Recce 109s with 2 x drop tanks wouldn't have been the norm even for Recce 109s. 

 

just saying, in ww2 what constituted a 'proper' airfield was nothing like it is today, and specifically for 109s, they preferred it that way. lack of 'hard pack' doesn't really mean anything then in the context of fixed versus highly mobile air bases. 

 

*edit* it should be noted the seabees were working with mostly sandy soil. while what they did is still imo badass engineering, it couldn't be replicated under different conditions. 

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, madrebel said:

couple things

1) you wouldn't waste time or resources leveling a strip for planes that didn't require them. the seabees were noted here in that they came up with a very fast 'hack' that allowed for semi hard air strips to be laid down very quickly. essentially they laid down corrugated sheeting then covered it with dirt and leveled that out and it worked great. do keep in mind that your modern concept of what 'aviation means' would be completely foreign to aviators at the time. the 'airodrome' with large concrete runways would be an amazing exception to the average pilot. remember, ww2 took place less than 40 years after the first powered flight in history. ww2 literally wrote the book on modern combat aviation. a 'proper' contemporary airfield then is really any mostly flat field with no trees. radio would be on a stack of likely empty ammo boxes or just sitting in a truck bed. the chance of having a proper 'building' wouldn't have been likely unless you were a multi engine bomber pilot. 

 

2) 109 pilots preferred grass/dirt runways because it allowed the splayed tires to slide instead of dig. SOP then for any and all 109 units would prefer grass/dirt runways. to add to this, Recce 109s likely would have been the only 109s to routinely take off from hard packed runways on account of the 2x300l drop tanks under the wings. All other 109s were limited to at most 2 x gun pods or a single center disposable store. this kept their all up weight well within the context of what a grass/dirt runway could handle. Even then Recce 109s with 2 x drop tanks wouldn't have been the norm even for Recce 109s. 

 

just saying, in ww2 what constituted a 'proper' airfield was nothing like it is today, and specifically for 109s, they preferred it that way. lack of 'hard pack' doesn't really mean anything then in the context of fixed versus highly mobile air bases. 

 

*edit* it should be noted the seabees were working with mostly sandy soil. while what they did is still imo badass engineering, it couldn't be replicated under different conditions. 

My wifes gramps was a Seabee in the PTO.  You describe exactly what he did and sometimes under fire. They laid down metal panels and covered them with sand.  Early on they used the sand to put their "armored" construction vehicles behind it to protect them. He said that they could lay an airfield and get it operational in a few days this way and that they where very easy to repair.  Any bomb damage was a simple matter of filling the crater and putting a few metal metal panels down and repacking the sand in that area. Took a few hours.. replacing equipment was a different story, but he said if the [censored] had attacked their construction depots as the primary target - which they didn't the air fields would have taken days or weeks to repair without them because the field repairs would have been done by truck, wench and manpower... IE they had man pushed rollers to compact the sand.  He also had a very cool picture he was given by some US pilots and signed by them... The photo was a formation of US pilots flying spitfires when he was assigned to England in the early war years working on airfields there. Now he told me these pilots flew them in combat.. not sure if that is a true statement.  He served in the PTO right after Guadal Canal (Sp?) and helped finish the Air Field then through the Island hopping campaign to IIRC his final destination at Iwo Jima where he stayed until the end of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is my pseudo code/math for a scaling mechanic.

 

X = damage required to destroy AF

Y = existence of a destroyed AF

Z = additional damage required if there is at least one AF with a destroyed state

 

Map start: (my flight and I drop the first bombs of the map)

X = fulfilled

Y = 1 now cause we dropped the AF

Z = 25%

 

Thus far, my flight took off and destroyed ... Antwerp AF. We are now taking off again and headed to Brussels where again we successfully get all our bombs on target.

The calculation now is X+(Y*Z) and since my flight was the minimum required to drop an AF in a single run, we don't have the ordnance to destroy this second target at Brussels. 

 

I like this because it will work at any population level. If we have 10K pilots in game tomorrow, this would scale with that number. Might need to adjust things or add a compound scaler. Perhaps if Y is =>2 then Z becomes 100%.

 

Or

AOs = 4 but Y=0 ... do we not scale damage until Y is => AO count? right, lots of things you could do there to keep this in check. 

 

Share this post


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

So here is my pseudo code/math for a scaling mechanic.

 

X = damage required to destroy AF

Y = existence of a destroyed AF

Z = additional damage required if there is at least one AF with a destroyed state

 

Map start: (my flight and I drop the first bombs of the map)

X = fulfilled

Y = 1 now cause we dropped the AF

Z = 25%

 

Thus far, my flight took off and destroyed ... Antwerp AF. We are now taking off again and headed to Brussels where again we successfully get all our bombs on target.

The calculation now is X+(Y*Z) and since my flight was the minimum required to drop an AF in a single run, we don't have the ordnance to destroy this second target at Brussels. 

 

I like this because it will work at any population level. If we have 10K pilots in game tomorrow, this would scale with that number. Might need to adjust things or add a compound scaler. Perhaps if Y is =>2 then Z becomes 100%.

 

Or

AOs = 4 but Y=0 ... do we not scale damage until Y is => AO count? right, lots of things you could do there to keep this in check. 

 

TBH I rather there be a ppo type bomb damage crater than a "destroyed" no can fly out of zone.  That way the air field can be manually repaired by engineers and actual bomb accuracy important.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do so many people want to create work in a game? if any of this is made repairable by players you've now built something that compels players to do something that doesn't involve them shooting someone in the face. 

 

do you really like 'repairing' in this case? do you not agree that it just creates a [censored] job that has to be done or else? what about over pop? they can commit more resources to repair, now we have another thing we need a population scaler for. Or, we can just use the auto AI repair that the factories already benefit from ... and tune that, perhaps put the population scaler here ... and have the same net effect without creating boring compulsory jobs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repairing could serve as an alternative to grinding those air ranks because after t1 the players flying in E1s start to get severely disadvantaged.  Just food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent and fair point ... ugh though. we used to have this by way of 10m defense missions at AF depots but ... idk i'd rather just see the E3 and maybe replace the hurri1a for the 12gun b and the MB.151 with a cannon for the french noobs. or some way for greentags to earn a top tier ride ... hell i'd give them that for a successful RTB with as little as one damage claim.

 

if you have something that needs a relief valve, i'd prefer to look at why there is a need for the relief valve and figure out how to better manage the pressure. it is a lot to ask of someone with no simulator experience to jump in and fly a plane through a whole mission and rtb. its also really [censored] losing half a list to a greentag who can't take off ...

 

need some sort of personal account that fills for success and is spent to use without making that pay to win.

Share this post


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

TBH I rather there be a ppo type bomb damage crater than a "destroyed" no can fly out of zone.  That way the air field can be manually repaired by engineers and actual bomb accuracy important.

Not exactly sure how we got here, i maybe missed something
But if airfield was destroyed, that is exactly what you would have, Pockmarked field, bomb craters, debris rubble hulked planes etc.
Oh you could spawn in, but the reason you would not use it is you cant roll a plane 5 feet without falling in a crater or running into something and busting up your prop etc. It wouldnt be closed by rule, but simply by physical impossibility of use

And with what we were talking about, it would self repair if you did not keep up the bombing in say 70 minutes.
that gives the option but not requirement of manual repair, so you can focus on driving the enemy bombers away and what not instead of being forced into janitorial service, and yet if a squad wanted to run an engie op to get the AF back online in say 20 minutes they could.
(Ever try to get a bridge up and some night 2 hours later you are still trying to organize getting it back up?)

Times of course are adjustable, can not know what kind of times play best until you try them
and they could of course self adjust for population.

I know the PPO thing seems cool (well it is cool actually), but being that PPO's are an item on a limited budget they are probably best saved for things that a player can actually make use of and that cant happen by other means.
At least that is my thinking on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anything that gives game advantage, regardless of automated backend, will become compulsory to winning and exploited. so many examples i could list from so many games, none worse than the things people would do in grindy RPGs for 1% advantage. hours of 'game time' spent working. 

 

the advantage of a binary state is no added art is required. a spawn list is either there, or it isn't. no need to track anything at the server, no need to send anything about the state to the clients. clean, simple, effective. ideal? no, but doable and gets us a good solution that can be iterated instead of ripped out and redone or just turned off forever. add in a .state afs to the cli and spit out the info on wiretap as step one at a minimum, worry about gui presentation later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually let me step back. i'm not opposed to player effort being pooled and spent to accelerate 'stuff'.

 

Borrowing from that thread, I'd love it if a squad, or squads, could spend their squad pooled VPs to accelerate the repair of a specific airfield. To 'harden' the AF. I'd like it so that if these squads were generally successful they could maintain this 'hardened faster repair rate' and maintain a close PoP to the front. Their opposition, being generally unsuccessful due to said squad's success, wouldn't be able to maintain the sped up repair rate and lose their close PoP(s).

 

Or, lets say instead of sustaining higher repair rate, your opponent spawned everything they could, as fast as they could, focusing on CAS. Then when you and yours destroy their close AFs, they then use their VP to reserve the best possible fighters to come back at you ... or something along those lines

in this example players are spending their 'success points' to cause an automatic system to function better simulating a side's ability to marshal more forces, overstock AA munitions, and generally put max effort but at a cost. Also, in this example real human beings aren't having to do something so mind numbingly boring as using fix it felix jr's magic hammer to 'repair stuff' in a game where they could otherwise be trying to shoot something in the face. 

 

Repair works for bridges, tracks on tanks, emplacement type things ... things that are part of an active battle scene. fixing 'things' when you're not underfire though? how is that fun? why should we want that in the design?

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


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

why do so many people want to create work in a game? if any of this is made repairable by players you've now built something that compels players to do something that doesn't involve them shooting someone in the face. 

 

do you really like 'repairing' in this case? do you not agree that it just creates a [censored] job that has to be done or else? what about over pop? they can commit more resources to repair, now we have another thing we need a population scaler for. Or, we can just use the auto AI repair that the factories already benefit from ... and tune that, perhaps put the population scaler here ... and have the same net effect without creating boring compulsory jobs?

I repair AI at the AFs all the time.. If I have to repair a AF I don't mind doing it. Repair and blowing stuff we do where there is no fighting as it is.  The other point is that you don't get a single bomber who can do multi drops on the AF over a period of time shut it down... and ppl complain about he speed in which the DB7 has... think what happens when the db7 are destroying AFs 100km behind the lines with regularity.  All they have to do is hit a portion of the AF and it counts.  IF you have something like the need for accuracy to actually hinder AC from taking off like craters, you will actually have to have some sort of accuracy that craters the AF to a point the AF cannot be used.  To do that successfully you just might need a lot of bombers in the air for the attack... and BOOM fighter escorts and a actual air war.

Share this post


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

Not exactly sure how we got here, i maybe missed something
But if airfield was destroyed, that is exactly what you would have, Pockmarked field, bomb craters, debris rubble hulked planes etc.
Oh you could spawn in, but the reason you would not use it is you cant roll a plane 5 feet without falling in a crater or running into something and busting up your prop etc. It wouldnt be closed by rule, but simply by physical impossibility of use

And with what we were talking about, it would self repair if you did not keep up the bombing in say 70 minutes.
that gives the option but not requirement of manual repair, so you can focus on driving the enemy bombers away and what not instead of being forced into janitorial service, and yet if a squad wanted to run an engie op to get the AF back online in say 20 minutes they could.
(Ever try to get a bridge up and some night 2 hours later you are still trying to organize getting it back up?)

Times of course are adjustable, can not know what kind of times play best until you try them
and they could of course self adjust for population.

I know the PPO thing seems cool (well it is cool actually), but being that PPO's are an item on a limited budget they are probably best saved for things that a player can actually make use of and that cant happen by other means.
At least that is my thinking on it.

Well the first paragraphs are what I am talking about. Cratering a AF to keep planes from flying. Sense we don't have deformable terrain the PPO is A solution.  There are also much more desirable benefits for physical damage...

 

1. An air field attack would take effort, not some lonewolf who hits one portion of the AF over and over again but the whole AF is taking accumulative damage that prevents ppl from spawning or dwindles the AC able to spawn.

2. Gives bomber command a entirely new objective for high alt strategic bombing missions and thus an air war.

3. PPO timers would act as the "repair" or have engineers who can "repair" them with their repair kit.

4. Crater PPOs would require zero coding apart from themselves.

 

I understand where Mad is coming from - coding seems easier.  I don't entirely disagree.  I think coding should at somepoint be involved as in coding a AF bombing penalty like when a bomb hits a hangar or something a plane might be "destroyed" from the supply.. or mb its the resupply timers for a ticket that is reset.  MB hitting the radio tower knocks out AWS for a bit in the region. I don't know. I'm certainly not going to discount his intensions, I think he is on to something that actually would add content.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I repair AI at the AFs all the time.. If I have to repair a AF I don't mind doing it. Repair and blowing stuff we do where there is no fighting as it is.  The other point is that you don't get a single bomber who can do multi drops on the AF over a period of time shut it down... and ppl complain about he speed in which the DB7 has... think what happens when the db7 are destroying AFs 100km behind the lines with regularity.  All they have to do is hit a portion of the AF and it counts.  IF you have something like the need for accuracy to actually hinder AC from taking off like craters, you will actually have to have some sort of accuracy that craters the AF to a point the AF cannot be used.  To do that successfully you just might need a lot of bombers in the air for the attack... and BOOM fighter escorts and a actual air war.

your entire opposing point is easily handled by design.

 

don't make it possible for a single bomber to do anything. don't make it possible for 8 bombers to do it. make it require 12 or more flying continuously ... or w/e. you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. craters on runways would be nice to have but aren't required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2018 at 10:29 AM, bmbm said:

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.

1. You speak as if a decision has been made as to not to allow direct spawn at an Advanced AF. We are far from there, I hope. As far as I understand its not clear yet if CRS will consider developing them at all.

2. Or you will see newbs getting better quicker, and aces reminded of their 'mortality' more often. An at least now Doc wont be to blame for trees around AFs :P

3. Probably true. But one should not have any problems landing 109s and FWs on a short runaway, after enough practice.  

4. A minimum distance to the frontline should be enforced. Also, bombers should not be allowed to spawn at Mobile AFs (or at least not heavy bombers). While your fear is valid, I really think that the mobile AF PPO could actually encourage a different type of air combat than the perpetual circle jerk at AOs. Make them AFs (mobile or not) damageable and maybe even make the supply list in them reduced accordingly to the damage state of the AF.  This will encourage attackers to bring bombers at high alt, and force defenders to scramble fighters to intercept, again at alt. 

Regarding vulching, as explained before in another thread, mobile AFs will still have some degree of protection from AA. So I dont expect a SINGLE fighter to be able to shut it down. Maybe 3-4 coordinate fighters could, depending on how strong the AA defenses will be. So, 1-2 vulchers should be a mere annoyance. More, and the defenders will be forced to lift from AFs nearby to take care of the vulchers. Again, encouraging high alt fights. Add to that the possibility of Squad placed AFs (to reward the best Figher Squadron, by a metric that remains to be decided), and there will  be a sense of pride in defending a home base. Squads will only grow as a result, IMO. And, I hope that is what everyone wants. I hope...

Lastly, I agree a balance should be found between how difficult it would be to place them and the rewards they bring. I have no doubt that 4Wing wold be able to find, every given night at least 5 volunteers to build a mobile AF. Willing to bet you 100 USD. Regarding axis air squads, we are a Joke nowdays... So, we might have trouble at the beginning. But I am willing to bet you another 100USD that if this Mobile AF PPO is implemented, in a few weeks after they are introduced, there will be no shortage of volunteers to build them on the Axis side as well. And I agree it shold not be a chore. Thats why putting this onus solely on HC is a bad idea. They are already overwhelmed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, madrebel said:

your entire opposing point is easily handled by design.

 

don't make it possible for a single bomber to do anything. don't make it possible for 8 bombers to do it. make it require 12 or more flying continuously ... or w/e. you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. craters on runways would be nice to have but aren't required. 

I can see how that would work.. I'm not opposed to it. Not sure how the game "knows" there are 12 bombers hitting the AF.. but lets say it does and the requirement is 12 bombers with the total payload hitting the AF at nearly the same time to accumulate enough damage in that threshold to start "destroying" the AF...  How would that in reality differ from having physical damage appear on the AF with a auto repair time?

I ask that question because I fly, boat, tank and do infantry. I do all aspects of the game. I will draw you a picture this way to help you understand that I don't see the air war should be separate from the ground war. I think coding damage to make an AF unspawnable helps solidify a separation between the air portion of the game and the ground portion of the game.  I think they need to be integrated better with more tangible cooperation.

The scenario goes like this.  Front line AF is being attacked..  Friendly air starts to lift but soon cannot due to AF attackers camping the hangars.  Out of the AF AB come the tanks.. there is no cover for the attacking infantry... no obstructions for the tanks - AF attack bogs down.  BUT WAIT Here come the bombers and lay down a load of bombs on the AF.  The Craters now give cover for infantry,.. This can happen for the defenders too so they can get their infantry across the AF.  The crater PPO is not just to obstruct planes from taking off but can be used in this way to help the ground troops. 

Now your side has taken the town and you want to RTB there... well you can wait till the crater PPos go away or repair the field.  IMHO its a better way to get more ppl involved, more reason to get in the air and better immersion for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm preferring the bomb number versus joules now after thinking about it. there are down sides but those can mostly be controlled via payload design.

 

Example it takes 100 bombs to drop an AF. If one (of your enemy's) AF is knocked out anywhere on the map, it now takes 120 to destroy the next. If 2 knocked out, 140 bombs. etc etc. If 3 are destroyed, maybe its 260%, then 380% etc etc. how the scaling cat gets skinned to some extent doesn't matter as it can be done any number of ways.

 

This leaves bomb design, how many joules does that HE contain and many fragments off the design table. This causes problems in T0 with the just flat out better average german bomb. the RaF had the MC and HC bombs but they weren't common early on as I understand. MC bombs, essentially the same as the german SC, became the default standard in .. 42? Anyway, then the RaF lost their minds and you get the tallboy, grandslam, etc. the germans just can't compete as the war goes on if joules on target is used. right, so if we can avoid using joules for these types of targets, we can retain asymetrical balance using asymetrical weapons.

 

number of bombs on the other hand ascribes a red v blue mechanic that is imo simpler to manage. number of bombs is only strange real early in the war and or if you allow lots of small bombs as a loadout. the blen1 being the outlier here. you could just delete the blen1 entirely, move the blen4 down to its place, and call it a day. would anyone notice/care? 

 

with bomb number your only concerned with each sides ability to deliver and how many can be delivered per hour per person given perfect execution. the bomb make up and the damage done can be IMO adequately simulated by just getting bombs in the box. which many of you take for granted btw. new players successfully using our bomb sights and landing 8 in the box ... not as easy as many claim. we shouldn't ask for precision when the reality was anything but precise.  ability to deliver number of bombs can be controlled via loadouts and or models selected to arrive at an asymetrical RvB like balance and still have bombs that are effective in the field against tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire AF is a viable runway
The whole entire 640,000 sq/m is coded as runway grade terrain, meaning if one chooses to actually use the full airfield one can (as opposed to spawning and running right into the trees without taxiing and making use of the full area provided)
So i suppose we wont die too badly from allowing the bombs to count from noobs who have trouble getting all their bombs within 200 feet of each other
let alone down the centerline of the painted runway.
Not to mention the PPO's cease to do much when i can just taxi over across the N edge of the airfield and use it like a perfect runway.

One guy going on a solo hero run i wouldnt see as getting much bang for his buck if you get it set up right.
between the AF attempting to auto repair and offsetting his single runs cause he cant get enough bombs on target fast enough, and a couple guys in fighters deciding to put a fatal end to his silliness because they kept watching the line of yellow squares running back n forth.
So i see little payoff in that, unless you are the machine formerly known as forest who can fly an entire squadron in close formation solo, but even forest cant dodge incoming interceptors.

Oh people will try anyways, and noobs will maybe get air rank out of it knocking out the solo bombers in their T0 fighters
which isnt a bad thing actually. 

Share this post


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

Not sure how the game "knows" there are 12 bombers hitting the AF

It does not.
What you might do is require a given number of bombs hitting it within a given time frame to to overload the self repair
For simplicity sake lets just say that
Self Repair can negate 5 bomb hits per 10 minute cycle
So in order to have anything count, i have to be hitting it at least 6 times every 10 minutes

But that wont get me very far because that leaves me the effect of one bomb, i will be forever trying to get enough hits stuck to it to 
take it down.

Now if 10 people help me, and we each have 6 bombs that is 10 hits self repair can not negate
and we keep doing runs till we overload it and get max hits stuck to it, at which point it's self repair shuts down for the chosen duration
Say 70 minutes
After that time, self repair kicks back in and begins fixing the field again.

If you leave it go, it will become flyable again even if no one helps repair it

The ability to spawn into the hangar at the field never goes away, you simply dont use it because the visible damaged state tells you you've no chance in hell of lifting from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15m cycles maybe? every 15m the game checks for bombs on target, if none, 25% gets repaired? essentially, if one wave fails, one level is repaired etc. 

 

how many people is the assumed good minimum? 8? our number then is 64 bombs yes? do we expect 8 people to sustain or is it safe to allow 50% of the initial minimum as the required minimum for sustain damage? in this example, 8 people have to successfully land bombs on target in any 15m window. from then on, 4 people are required to prevent repair?

 

this would then mean the next AF would require 10 bomb loads to destroy, and 5 to sustain ... while 4 people are still sustaining target 1. we've now got minimum 9 required to sustain damage across two airfields, and at one point 14 total pilots to both attack a second AF and sustain damage on the first. we're not talking about defense yet but if all you're doing is dedicating the minimum amount of bombers then a single successful intercept prevents your success. those 15 peak bombers will need escorts and their home AFs will need defense.

also all the above is before population imbalance scaling. let's just use 50% for an example. the over pop side would require 21-22 players before escort/defense in the above example. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, madrebel said:

15m cycles maybe? every 15m the game checks for bombs on target, if none, 25% gets repaired? essentially, if one wave fails, one level is repaired etc. 

 

how many people is the assumed good minimum? 8? our number then is 64 bombs yes? do we expect 8 people to sustain or is it safe to allow 50% of the initial minimum as the required minimum for sustain damage? in this example, 8 people have to successfully land bombs on target in any 15m window. from then on, 4 people are required to prevent repair?

 

this would then mean the next AF would require 10 bomb loads to destroy, and 5 to sustain ... while 4 people are still sustaining target 1. we've now got minimum 9 required to sustain damage across two airfields, and at one point 14 total pilots to both attack a second AF and sustain damage on the first. we're not talking about defense yet but if all you're doing is dedicating the minimum amount of bombers then a single successful intercept prevents your success. those 15 peak bombers will need escorts and their home AFs will need defense.

also all the above is before population imbalance scaling. let's just use 50% for an example. the over pop side would require 21-22 players before escort/defense in the above example. 

 

Hard numbers, i would probably make mechanic 1st
apply some numbers, run some closed tests until you come up with a suitable number to "try" in a live setting
some things are hard to get proper numbers until you actually make it work.

You would want it to take effort though, not be too easy.
But once accomplished, allow a small break, hence the 70 min period where the AF ceases to attempt to repair.

Figure once something like that gets in place and running and people realise it, there is be delays and setbacks
Interceptors took out some of your bombers, something happened and you got much delayed and repair function
undid some of your effort etc, so when you finally succeed in downing it, i figure you need a small reprieve.

It's down and for XX minutes you can not hurt it any more, you can go on to other targets etc, so 
You are not slaved to a constant sustaining effort, it gets boring, imagine a never ending engineer mission to keep sapping the same FB
repeatedly just to keep it closed.
It would get horribly boring for the engineers, no change of scenery or anything

How to tell the states could be very simple, no complicated commands etc, just visual
1 damaged state model that says i am hurt, i am running repair cycles. Field not blocked from use, but does display some physical obstacles
1 damaged state model that says yep i am down, too much wreckage present to even try taxiing out of the hangars

So your pilots can keep tabs on something the way pilots would, visual recon.

Dont want to make it burn out for the attacker or the defender.

If possible without too much hassle, i would have the enemy bomb impact trigger the repair check timer instance
that way no timers rolling if nothing is needing them to roll.
So if there was a huge delay before next wave came and AF fully repairs, exit timer.

Again, you would know visually if the AF is cycling a timer or not, if it looks pristine, it is not.

Simple, visual, easy for the average player to deal with, dont have to go running a bunch of commands or deal with a bunch of numbers.

Something like that anyways

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fair point - i guess in a way i'm design work too despite the more active nature.

 

hmm. your route likely needs a more exponetial scaler then as the assumption shifts to - if successful all that man power can turn to another target. if we're trying to make it highly inefficient scaling to impossible to destroy multiple fields at once then - we'll need to account for all that man power now free to do it again without needing to maintain target 1 for awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, does this require a new AF type AO? spotting targets is difficult in this game, always has been. having to state your intent may help defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.