• 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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
halsey

give bombers the ability to damage fbs

45 posts in this topic

First, I'm not suggesting that one or two bombers be able to drop a FB. I'm thinking like 20 bombers or more if need be.   This will give bombers a legitimate target and help integrate the air game with the ground game. 

 

Anyway, just a thought from an air guy

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea too . make it so the bombs don't do a lot of damage but enough to make it look as if enemy engies are taking the fb down . Would give a distraction and not have it " ei at fb !! taking it down"

Also would be assistance when an fb is almost down and needs a little bit more ..

Tr6al

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or instead of modifying the damage of the bombs, another option is to set a maximum damage that FB can take from bombs. 50% , 75 % .... so bombers can not fully destroy the FB on their own.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the air game this is a amazing idea, but the main part of the game is the ground game. Everythink what can stop the ground game is not really good i think.

Of example, if you control the Air atm and have a airfield near, you can stop a AO really good with kill all eTrucks.

So it is atm possible to stop an AO with bombers.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support this move.  50% dmg cap sounds about right.  If 'partial' damage is not feasible in the code, perhaps letting bombers take down FB vehicle spawns entirely, while leaving infantry spawns impervious.

He-111 should maintain bombload advantage here (less 111 bombs needed to bring dmg to 50% cap).

Edited by forrest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to poor cold water on this idea but you can't discriminate between types of damage. Everything in this game works on the "joules energy applied" system. It doesn't look to see what type of weapon was doing the joules (as long as it is an allowed weapon type). So for example you can say that "bombs can damage FB" but you can't say "bombs will only do 50% of their normal damage when they hit the FB." So your only real option is to increase the FB damage levels to make it harder for bombs to destroy it, in which case you have to compensate by increase the explosive power of satchel charges which creates a whole host of cascading downstream effects when a engineer runs up and places the equivalent of a 100kg bomb onto a tank that he pulled out of his side pocket.

And BTW FBs in the early game were destroyable from the air. This feature was removed because it only took a single 50 kg bomb to destroy it (see reason above) and it was impossible to defend against it (not to mention we didn't have any AA guns back then).

I'm a bomber pilot. I love to bomb. The more bombs the merrier! But I have to give this idea a thumbs down since it is simply too overpowering. It is too easy for a lone bomber on a kamikaze run to slip through a fighter screen and take down even a well defended FB with multiple AA guns set up. Engine off bombing. Hugging terrain to mask red circle and dropping 15 feet off the deck. Suicide dives from 4k alt. I've seen it all and its very gamey and immersion breaking.

It sounds great in theory but the unintended consequences is that it would wreck the ground game. Now if there was a way to increase the threshold where you really do need 20+ bombs then I would maybe consider it, but I still have my reservations. I like Forrest's idea to limit and cap it at 50% damage tops, maybe combine the two?

Share this post


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

Not to poor cold water on this idea but you can't discriminate between types of damage. Everything in this game works on the "joules energy applied" system. It doesn't look to see what type of weapon was doing the joules (as long as it is an allowed weapon type). So for example you can say that "bombs can damage FB" but you can't say "bombs will only do 50% of their normal damage when they hit the FB." So your only real option is to increase the FB damage levels to make it harder for bombs to destroy it, in which case you have to compensate by increase the explosive power of satchel charges which creates a whole host of cascading downstream effects when a engineer runs up and places the equivalent of a 100kg bomb onto a tank that he pulled out of his side pocket.

And BTW FBs in the early game were destroyable from the air. This feature was removed because it only took a single 50 kg bomb to destroy it (see reason above) and it was impossible to defend against it (not to mention we didn't have any AA guns back then).

I'm a bomber pilot. I love to bomb. The more bombs the merrier! But I have to give this idea a thumbs down since it is simply too overpowering. It is too easy for a lone bomber on a kamikaze run to slip through a fighter screen and take down even a well defended FB with multiple AA guns set up. Engine off bombing. Hugging terrain to mask red circle and dropping 15 feet off the deck. Suicide dives from 4k alt. I've seen it all and its very gamey and immersion breaking.

It sounds great in theory but the unintended consequences is that it would wreck the ground game. Now if there was a way to increase the threshold where you really do need 20+ bombs then I would maybe consider it, but I still have my reservations. I like Forrest's idea to limit and cap it at 50% damage tops, maybe combine the two?

Is it possible to turn damage 'ON' for one of the spawns (Vehicle or Infantry) and leave the other immune?  That would allow for 'partial' bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... that is a great question. Honestly I don't know. Probably need @HATCH or someone with experience on the coding end to let us know. But the more I think about it, it doesn't sound like it would be a bad idea of properly implemented:

1) 50% damage cap on the FB from bombs (rest of the way you need to use engineers)

2) Drastically increase number of bombs needed to take down FB

3) Hit needs to be direct hit

4) Adjust airplane engine on/off model to put the final nail in the coffin of engine-off bombing (this in my book is an absolute MUST if we are going to do this)

5) Maintain current bomb-arming timer to prevent deck bombing (again a must)

6) Wing/airframe stress model to prevent trans-sonic kamikaze dive bombing (Hatch said he wanted to look at airframe stress overall combined with the damage model)

 

Without these it will just become a farce of gamey suicide bombing runs that are impossible to defend against or interdict outside of vulching the bomber airfields.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Hmm... that is a great question. Honestly I don't know. Probably need @HATCH or someone with experience on the coding end to let us know. But the more I think about it, it doesn't sound like it would be a bad idea of properly implemented:

1) 50% damage cap on the FB from bombs (rest of the way you need to use engineers)

2) Drastically increase number of bombs needed to take down FB

3) Hit needs to be direct hit

4) Adjust airplane engine on/off model to put the final nail in the coffin of engine-off bombing (this in my book is an absolute MUST if we are going to do this)

5) Maintain current bomb-arming timer to prevent deck bombing (again a must)

6) Wing/airframe stress model to prevent trans-sonic kamikaze dive bombing (Hatch said he wanted to look at airframe stress overall combined with the damage model)

 

Without these it will just become a farce of gamey suicide bombing runs that are impossible to defend against or interdict outside of vulching the bomber airfields.

I agree with these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said before, I don't want a single bomber to be able to stop an attack, it should take several bombers multiple runs to do significant damage to the FB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the bombers were able to drop FBS. THe issue turned out that the inbalance in bomb damage caused huge issues. THe idea of it to just drop part of the fb is interesting.

@XOOM

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

Actually the bombers were able to drop FBS. THe issue turned out that the inbalance in bomb damage caused huge issues. THe idea of it to just drop part of the fb is interesting.

@XOOM

I'm happy with just Vehicle Spawn open to bomb damage, if there's not a way to cap partial damage on both.  This gives bombers something to bomb, AAA something shoot during FB defense, and infantry engies (with LMG/tank support) will still be needed to assault the Infantry Spawn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FB's currently take what? 23 satchels?

Change the damage to require the total damage equivalent of just say 15 SC250 bomb direct hits
For the Infantry spawn and 15 for the Vehicle spawn, the crates can remain as they are.

Yes, this means it would take more satchels of doing it purely by ground.
It is a trade off for gaining combined arms damage.

So around 30 bomb hits, or a combo of bombs and satchels.
Numbers could be tweaked around for best result.

I liked back in the day when bombers could hurt FB's, just did not like that 1 single bomb took out the whole works.

Personally, i would be ok with 75mm or larger HE tank shells being able to contribute damage as well.

The more things you allow to contribute to breaking it, the more you increment the max damage it can take so as to not have it simply become easy FB ping pong, which was the only downside of how it originally was.
a couple B1 75mm rounds and FB was down, that was way too easy, then the StuG B would pop 2, and FB down, and back and forth it would go
just like that.

Edited by Merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the FB ping pong was awful. I would personally leave the HE shells out of it. Its simply too easy to land hits from 2km+ away. Especially now with resupply all you need to do is park a truck by your gun and you have infinite ammo. I would guess this is exactly how many players would do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, aismov said:

I would personally leave the HE shells out of it. Its simply too easy to land hits from 2km+ away. Especially now with resupply all you need to do is park a truck by your gun and you have infinite ammo. I would guess this is exactly how many players would do it.

Perhaps, but if you factored the FB's life expectancy based of the games most powerful bomb, it 'might' work.
It also might not and might devolve into what you describe.
It's definitely a thing that could be tested, analyzed, and changed quickly if it was found to become what you suspect.

Remember, i suggested that for each additional means one gains of damaging the FB, that the FB becomes a bit stronger.
Kind of give and take to balance it out.

I would not mind having FB takedowns become a full on brawl.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Without these it will just become a farce of gamey suicide bombing runs that are impossible to defend against or interdict outside of vulching the bomber airfields.

I thought we killed suicide bombing with the 2 second bomb arming patch. I think just upping the amount of damage it takes would be sufficient and maintain the bomb vs satchel joules difference. Just like it should be able to absorb more than a few bomb hits, just a couple engineers shouldn't be able to affect it either. It should take a pretty substantial demo team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

I liked back in the day when bombers could hurt FB's, just did not like that 1 single bomb took out the whole works.

 

35 minutes ago, aismov said:

Yeah the FB ping pong was awful. I would personally leave the HE shells out of it. Its simply too easy to land hits from 2km+ away. Especially now with resupply all you need to do is park a truck by your gun and you have infinite ammo. I would guess this is exactly how many players would do it.

Me too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Properly placed satchels brought down whole bridges...but I agree with the thoughts on this thread.

Bring back those epic combined arms fb attacks/defences.

Bring the fight to the countryside to earn the right to attack the town. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dropbear said:

Properly placed satchels brought down whole bridges...

This be true, but the FB is kind of a small object, that is attempting to represent something that really
cant be constrained to 2 little tents and some supply crates, and the FB has no opportunity to pick it's location, Yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FB fights in the open are underrated. What if a mission could place 1 FB from the static FB? That would be epic, and then have MS from close up. Oh my gosh that would be great.

Share this post


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

I thought we killed suicide bombing with the 2 second bomb arming patch. I think just upping the amount of damage it takes would be sufficient and maintain the bomb vs satchel joules difference. Just like it should be able to absorb more than a few bomb hits, just a couple engineers shouldn't be able to affect it either. It should take a pretty substantial demo team.

Thankfully it has improved by 99.9%. I was more referring to the two remaining evils of the bombing game: engine-off bombing and supersonic dives. Most of these are rarely if ever seen today, but I think its more because all the old school bomber pilots left and not too many people know about these, ahem, "techniques." But if you have a high value target players are naturally going to try to find every advantage the game engine will allow them.

The second FBs become bombable the first thing you would see make a repeat combat debut is the sneak engine-off bombing since that is the easiest way to avoid being detected. And when there is thick fighter cover the next thing players will do is a highspeed dive from 3-4k altitude, wing/airframe stress be damned as you are pushing 800+ km/h in your circa 1935-designed bomber. Both nearly impossible to interdict or defend against. Hence why I think we need to address engine start/stop to prevent this nonsense from returning to the game and also add airframe stress and damage when you exceed the design envelope in both speed and Gs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would be nice to be able to repair fb's that have been damaged by bombs and satchels too . On a similar scale to bomb/satchel,

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure you can bomb like that except from the fighter bombers?
DB7 and HE-111 cant drop in a steep dive i dont think?

Dont think i would enjoy lawndarting 30 fighter bombers, but i guess someone might?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, bombers taking out FBs would reduce the attritional value of bombers units killing FB spawned units.

Had a lot of this stuff in the old days, Stukas of course were premium FB busters and not many Allied pilots were good enough with the Blen to reliably kill them.  The ones that were were awesome of course.

The Sedan FBs could be particularly frustrating as an operational Bertrix meant Stukas switched the FBs Axis in 5m.

 

So I would chug a Char out there, take it down with the 75 HE, park the Char under trees to frustrate the bombing, then wait.

 

Usually 5m before the FB came back, I would kill it back immediately, next time someone would spawn in and I would mow them down with the 47 (no sappers or engineers then), then 75 the FB again.  The Stukas would rain bombs on me and the titanium trees allowed me to laugh it up.  This would continue until I ran out of both 75 and 47 HE, then it was a campfest until someone got lucky with an 88 or a bomb.

 

Ya, so maybe not recreate that gameplay please.

14 hours ago, madrebel said:

All for more bomber targets

How about visible supply at airfields?

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.