Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
vanapo

Please remove "radar"/EWS for bombers flying higher than 4.5k

32 posts in this topic

Its just annoying that you can't see where the real fight is going on because all those allied RDP bomber yellows and their 20 mirrors are scattered over the whole map and I don't know where to head with my LW fighter to get some action.

Another solution would be to place the factory towns way north or way south so this RDP stuff isn't messing with the air game anymore.

Share this post


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

Its just annoying that you can't see where the real fight is going on because all those allied RDP bomber yellows and their 20 mirrors are scattered over the whole map and I don't know where to head with my LW fighter to get some action.

Another solution would be to place the factory towns way north or way south so this RDP stuff isn't messing with the air game anymore.

well one thing is that, if you guys trying bombing our facilites, we play defense and intercept your bombers, 2nd thing is that why would u get rid of radar/aws? just because u have 20 mirrors scattered around the whole map, doesn't mean you should get rid of the radars, i would see to get rid of the AWS at 4.5k or higher, which wouldn't make sense because most of your guys bombers usually go from 4.5 to 5k so to get away from enemy flak -- the thing it is .. at least don't spread the facilites around the north and south .. but i just wish us allied players could get a dd to the german facilites to bomb it without flying, but also u guys have to use dd's to get to our england facilites, the fact that it usually takes over an hour and a half to get to whitstable from helle or somewhere in the zees, regarding the fact that only one england facility is actually on water so u guys can shoot our facilites with your dd's , you guys can easily just stay 8k out of whitstable with a dd and easily hit our facilites, but the other ones like ashford canterbury u guys have to get a bomber to, amiens abbville montreuil, even though the last 10 days u guys been taking the southern route to get to amiens and other facilites along with the northern route .. it took me and 4Wing 50 mins trying to find a bomber taking the northern route to our british facilites for bombing and rdp raids -- and also mirrors are in the game to explore the area or should i say hunt down fighters and other things too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nily5000 said:

RDP Is for nerds only. I am still not sure what it is.

nily it is basically supply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RDP bombing is one of hidden gems of this game. It’s a technical, specialised mini-game that is incredibly rewarding to participate in, A’s bomber, escort or interceptor. It should be celebrated as a fantastic addition to the ground war 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Silky said:

RDP bombing is one of hidden gems of this game. It’s a technical, specialised mini-game that is incredibly rewarding to participate in, A’s bomber, escort or interceptor. It should be celebrated as a fantastic addition to the ground war 

LOL that's the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard. 

Were you around the last time RDP almost wrecked the game? Well, we're back at that point. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's a mini game - please put it to the side so guys want to play the grown up game don't get annoyed by it.

Probably a standalone version would be nice.

Rapid Assault da Phactories (RaDP)

Set up a seperate server for that. People can bomb there all they want. And if you like it that way, you can even link that to the resupply timers so they can destroy the equipment for everybody else.

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


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

If it's a mini game - please put it to the side so guys want to play the grown up game don't get annoyed by it.

Probably a standalone version would be nice.

Rapid Assault da Phactories (RaDP)

Set up a seperate server for that. People can bomb there all they want. And if you like it that way, you can even link that to the resupply timers so they can destroy the equipment for everybody else.

Personally, I like that the game is multi-layered and more complex than fight for the town, win/lose. Fight for the next town, win/lose. Repeat ad infinitum 

 

I’d like to retain a complex game with many facets, including RDP resupply timers and moveable units on the map. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Silky said:

Personally, I like that the game is multi-layered and more complex than fight for the town, win/lose. Fight for the next town, win/lose. Repeat ad infinitum 

 

I’d like to retain a complex game with many facets, including RDP resupply timers and moveable units on the map. 

Good explanation Silky. Rdp Brings about a more complex game then point click shoot. People seem to be forgetting how rdp used to effect research rate to the next tier which is why its sooo different now. why has its always been a harshly judged mechanic?because its a back-end system most forget about to make bombers play a serious threat to the ground rather than just cas. Gives the game a little more to the unique side and a hint of realism to needing to secure homeland production of the war machine.

Edited by AirSlayr88
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AirSlayr88 said:

Rdp Brings about a more complex game then point click shoot.

Guys, I understand why you think RDP bombing adds a layer to the game and that this makes the game more interesting. It probably would, given a motivationg gameplay and thus a lot of players participating in a fair contest that's open for everybody that plays this game. But that's not how it works.

Imagine you play chess. And to make things more intersting, someone is adding a layer to the game. So there is another game of checkers being played on the side by two different players. One of the checkers players loses rather quickly and now you have to take half of your gaming pieces of the board. Does that sound like a more interesting variant of chess? Especially when it's allways the black team, that loses the checkers match?

This is basically what happens with RDP. It is disconnected from the main game by a lot of things as RDP takes so long most people participating in it won't have the time to spend a lot of time in the normal game and most of the guys playing the normal game on the ground don't play airforce at all, so they have nothing to do with the outcome. Yet they are the only ones that will benefit or suffer from the results. This is no good game mechanic at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vanapo said:

Guys, I understand why you think RDP bombing adds a layer to the game and that this makes the game more interesting. It probably would, given a motivationg gameplay and thus a lot of players participating in a fair contest that's open for everybody that plays this game. But that's not how it works.

Imagine you play chess. And to make things more intersting, someone is adding a layer to the game. So there is another game of checkers being played on the side by two different players. One of the checkers players loses rather quickly and now you have to take half of your gaming pieces of the board. Does that sound like a more interesting variant of chess? Especially when it's allways the black team, that loses the checkers match?

This is basically what happens with RDP. It is disconnected from the main game by a lot of things as RDP takes so long most people participating in it won't have the time to spend a lot of time in the normal game and most of the guys playing the normal game on the ground don't play airforce at all, so they have nothing to do with the outcome. Yet they are the only ones that will benefit or suffer from the results. This is no good game mechanic at all.

So the answer is to distill it down to the most basic common denominator? So your game of chess removes its RDP checkers layer (even though that game was in fact part of the game design and a huge contributor to the actual game this game is a simulation of...) but then you know what? That knight moves funny, and only certain types of players play know how to use the knight properly, so yeah - it needs to go. That bishop, with its funny diagonal moves, that doesn't fit with the straight pawn game most players want, so please remove it. Those rooks, and that downright bizarre castling manoeuvre - that is way too weird and idkwtf is going on, so that must also now be removed from the game, for the good of the players.

 

And then you're left with move pawn, take pawn, move next pawn, take pawn rinse repeat ad infinitum. 

 

I would hazard a guess if you ask people to list key elements of the western front on WW2, they'd say D-Day, Spitfires, Tiger tanks, Blitzkreig,Dunkirk and the Dambusters

 

The Air War must be a part of this game for anyone to consider it a serious attempt at WW2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Silky said:

I would hazard a guess if you ask people to list key elements of the western front on WW2, they'd say D-Day, Spitfires, Tiger tanks, Blitzkreig,Dunkirk and the Dambusters

I'd guess they won't list "single medium bombers going on suicide missions against the Ruhrgebiet thus taking down the whole war industry".

And the fact remains, that most of the guys playing the normal game on the ground don't play airforce at all, so they have nothing to do with the outcome. Yet they are the only ones that will benefit or suffer from the results. This is no good game mechanic at all.

54 minutes ago, Silky said:

So the answer is to distill it down to the most basic common denominator?

Didn't say that. I said "don't add another guy playing checkers to determine how many game pieces I get for my game of chess". That has no impact at all on the rules of the chess game.

I would say it's a bad idea to let the result of a disconnected game played by other people having an impact on the starting conditions of a totally different game. I think you can understand this logic.

Edited by vanapo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vanapo said:

I would say it's a bad idea to let the result of a disconnected game played by other people having an impact on the starting conditions of a totally different game. I think you can understand this logic.

 

What is wargaming other than gaming out what is never a level playing field, warfare? I know this is a very simple reply to your question but it is at the heart of the matter. It's why we model Tigers and Shermans differently. Also, the players CAN have an impact on this, they just have to work towards it. The population is an issue, but not the design per say, though I would personally scrap RDP bombing altogether in favour of operational level air power that effects local supply, at least until we have heavy bombers. It's an abstraction but its what we have for now.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, vanapo said:

I'd guess they won't list "single medium bombers going on suicide missions against the Ruhrgebiet thus taking down the whole war industry".

And the fact remains, that most of the guys playing the normal game on the ground don't play airforce at all, so they have nothing to do with the outcome. Yet they are the only ones that will benefit or suffer from the results. This is no good game mechanic at all.

You're conflating game design and exploiting game design. By that logic, people stab each other with knives, therefore we should ban knives

 

45 minutes ago, vanapo said:

Didn't say that. I said "don't add another guy playing checkers to determine how many game pieces I get for my game of chess". That has no impact at all on the rules of the chess game.

I would say it's a bad idea to let the result of a disconnected game played by other people having an impact on the starting conditions of a totally different game. I think you can understand this logic.

The game rules encompass it all, air, land and sea. You may as well complain that the armour game/players negatively impacts the infantry game/players, or that the infantry game negatively impacts the ATG game, or the AAA game negatively impacts the CAS game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

What is wargaming other than gaming out what is never a level playing field, warfare?

In warfare, you never want to enter a fair fight because you probably gonna loose it and die. In wargaming you always want balanced chances and thus a fair fight because it won't be fun to play it otherwise.

So Tigers and Shermans can be quite different, the gameplay resulting of their use should be somewhat balanced nonetheless. And in such a way that playes think the representation is more or less realistic and the chances to win are given on both sides, so that everybody who plays the game will get his fair share of fun out of it at some point.

The abstraction that is RDP right now is neither fun for both sides nor realistic. If it was, I would be for it. It is not, so I ask for it to be taken out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Silky said:

By that logic, people stab each other with knives, therefore we should ban knives

? how ?

11 minutes ago, Silky said:

You may as well complain that the armour game/players negatively impacts the infantry game/players, or that the infantry game negatively impacts the ATG game, or the AAA game negatively impacts the CAS game

No. Because the infantry has an impact on the armor and the armor has an impact on the infantry. They are playing the same game.

If tanks would be able to kill everything else, but only tanks could kill tanks - your point would be valid. But that would be a bad game design choice and so the game is modelled otherwise. How is the infantryman able to stop RDP inside of his gameplay? Not at all. He has to engage in a totally different gameplay at a totally different place with totally different people because this totally different game impacts his chances to succeed inside the game he actually wants to play.

That's bad game design.

EDIT: It's like saying "If you want to have fair chances for your football game, you have to sail and win the regatta first." Most football players will find this ridiculous. But the sailers will be pleased of course.

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree with the OP. If you need a better indicator where the fight is, I think there should be more levels than just yellow and red. Possibly a gradient between yellow and red based on number of active enemy fliers. Then just look for the most red.

 

On the topic of RDP, I think it's a very critical component of combined arms warfare. The game aims to be both a strategic and tactical simulation of warfare, and strategic goals include forward bases, bridges, and factory output.

The problem with RDP currently is that it is very poorly designed.

A good design for RDP would be:

Multiple players spawn in with bombers and escort fighters and take off.

Multiple players on the opposite side either already have patrol aircraft in the air or they lift off intercepting fighters.

The two sides clash, with the escorts fighters attempting to buy the bombers enough time to get through enemy lines in order to bomb. The bombers fend off the interceptors as well with their different gun positions on their aircraft.

The surviving bombers, if any, continue to make their way to the factories. The ground AAA around the factories are alerted about the incoming bombers, and attempt to shoot them down on their approach.

Any surviving bombers then make the attempt to RTB, possibly linking up with a second wave of escorts on their return trip.

In order to truly deprive the use of factories, these bombing campaigns should be active and sustained for as long as possible, requiring many tons of explosives to ensure that production lines cannot be utilized.

 

That's how WWII strategic bombing was done, and that's the kind of thing that RDP in this game should be about.

Instead, one guy in a bomber can spend a few hours suicide bombing a factory to completely destroy it. Super fun, engaging, logical gameplay! Very realistic! Wow! 11/10!

The parts the current model are missing include: the complete inability to intercept the enemy due to a combination of draw distance, lack of useful and/or actionable intelligence; properly discouraging suicide bombers; properly encouraging groups of players to participate; requiring many tons of explosives to destroy factories; etc.

Making a poorly-executed facet of the game a critical, disproportionately effective component in it is bad, and shouldn't be done.

 

To elaborate, it would be like requiring the UK soldiers on the continent to receive a steady shipment of supplies from the British Isles in order to resupply. The shipments are AI ships can can be intercepted with navy and air.

Sounds somewhat realistic, pretty interesting, right? The naval supply lines definitely fit into the strategic layer, they existed in WW2, it's all about combined arms gameplay, etc.

This paces a lot of importance suddenly on the Naval game, which has a grand total of two different boats with weapons on them in the whole game, no capability to tell where any of the enemy are, etc. And now it's in the game. Enjoy!

Wait, no, that'd be a bad idea, because the stuff that would support that being a great idea, and fun, and interesting, either don't exist yet or aren't where they need to be currently. Sound familiar?

Edited by chaoswzkd
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, vanapo said:

In warfare, you never want to enter a fair fight because you probably gonna loose it and die. In wargaming you always want balanced chances and thus a fair fight because it won't be fun to play it otherwise.

My observation of customer/player psychology over the past 17 years or so is that they always prefer an unfair fight. That's why weapons with high K/Ds, i.e. Matilda II, Tiger, Spitfires, are so popular with the side having them.

Share this post


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

My observation of customer/player psychology over the past 17 years or so is that they always prefer an unfair fight. That's why weapons with high K/Ds, i.e. Matilda II, Tiger, Spitfires, are so popular with the side having them.

That't true BUT my observation of computer games is they they will take out weapons that are unbalanced rather soon. Because players will leave if they think they had worse chances to begin with. Or the game is making money by selling those weapons to slaughter the f2p playerbase with it.

36 minutes ago, chaoswzkd said:

Disagree with the OP.

Totally agree with you post, chaos. My initial post was more or less intended to troll a bit. "This part of the game is totally broken but it seems like we can't take it out because a lot of folks threaten to leave if you do so - so make it less annoying for the rest of us plz"

Share this post


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

Guys, I understand why you think RDP bombing adds a layer to the game and that this makes the game more interesting. It probably would, given a motivationg gameplay and thus a lot of players participating in a fair contest that's open for everybody that plays this game. But that's not how it works.

Imagine you play chess. And to make things more intersting, someone is adding a layer to the game. So there is another game of checkers being played on the side by two different players. One of the checkers players loses rather quickly and now you have to take half of your gaming pieces of the board. Does that sound like a more interesting variant of chess? Especially when it's allways the black team, that loses the checkers match?

This is basically what happens with RDP. It is disconnected from the main game by a lot of things as RDP takes so long most people participating in it won't have the time to spend a lot of time in the normal game and most of the guys playing the normal game on the ground don't play airforce at all, so they have nothing to do with the outcome. Yet they are the only ones that will benefit or suffer from the results. This is no good game mechanic at all.

It does sound more interesting almost like a game of "I win" lol. I'm looking at it from the supply aspect if we are going to continue to have a limited supply then we should keep and utilize the ability to effect the source of that supply. Its a long standing mechanic that should never go away. Any effect on it is player driven or stopped by players its not a random change daily or a capture based system it is literally player driven just like the rest of the campaign.

Share this post


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

? how ?

No. Because the infantry has an impact on the armor and the armor has an impact on the infantry. They are playing the same game.

If tanks would be able to kill everything else, but only tanks could kill tanks - your point would be valid. But that would be a bad game design choice and so the game is modelled otherwise. How is the infantryman able to stop RDP inside of his gameplay? Not at all. He has to engage in a totally different gameplay at a totally different place with totally different people because this totally different game impacts his chances to succeed inside the game he actually wants to play.

That's bad game design.

EDIT: It's like saying "If you want to have fair chances for your football game, you have to sail and win the regatta first." Most football players will find this ridiculous. But the sailers will be pleased of course.

So you presumably want high alt level bombing entirely removed from the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Silky said:

So you presumably want high alt level bombing entirely removed from the game?

No.

I would like to have a working strategic air war when we have the means to implement it. We don't have now, as the situation clearly shows.

And I would even like to be able to hit frontline towns from 5k. I am doing level bombing right now if AA is intense at an AO. But you can't go very high because hits won't register.

For starters, if you really want to keep bombers destroying supply - limit it to air supply. I am LW at 90% of the time. I would loose supply. I would understand why. But I don't think it's a good idea to take away the panzers from the ground guys just because somewone is doing some stuff somewhere that he can't counter in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, vanapo said:

No.

I would like to have a working strategic air war when we have the means to implement it. We don't have now, as the situation clearly shows.

And I would even like to be able to hit frontline towns from 5k. I am doing level bombing right now if AA is intense at an AO. But you can't go very high because hits won't register.

For starters, if you really want to keep bombers destroying supply - limit it to air supply. I am LW at 90% of the time. I would loose supply. I would understand why. But I don't think it's a good idea to take away the panzers from the ground guys just because somewone is doing some stuff somewhere that he can't counter in any way.

I’m all for major changes to the impact of the strat bombing air game. What I don’t want to see is a huge cut to the impact without something replacing it

The act of long range high alt bombing is a genuine selling point to this game and I’m loathed to see it destroyed again unnecessarily 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.