heavy bombers vs ship

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Noble713 wrote:...Is there a lower limit to the amount of supplies a fully-loaded unit will still have?...
No, and this remains an unresolved issue. We've discussed it in house a few times without finding a solution.

And for your SSBN example, I used to say the same to George, until he showed me an article where it was suggested that harpoons/torpedoes could be loaded and launched from the SLBN tubes (at least that's what I recall, that was at least a year ago now...)
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

Post by Noble713 »

Was it this article? http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,85615_1,00.html
These purely paper notions (which admittedly could be very expensive to implement in practice
It's not even an actively-pursued conversion program, and this is for only 1 of the many boomer classes in service worldwide. Can't really assume that all the others automatically have the same flexibility. It's convenient that Mk48's and Tomahawks are the same size, but what about Russian torpedoes and cruise missiles? Or Chinese ones? I'd be quite surprised if they matched up so easily.

In the context of SR2020, where we will hopefully have the ability to refit units, I'd like to see an SSBN-->SSGN refit to cover things like this, but I wouldn't apply it to subs across the board.
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

I'd also like to see refits.

As for the torpedoes in the SLBM bays, while it may be a reach, we may let it slide for the sake of gameplay. Obviously we want to devote our energies to solving more pressing issues such as diplomacy and AI.

We'll revisit this more when we reach beta and I'm sure Tkobo will find us more interesting articles to consider ;)
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

Okay, i think im convinced,one illusion dead.

So what do we still really have ?

1)We still have 17 b-52hs attacking a single ship and unable to sink it without using missiles that are represented by units in the game.

2)We still have an ordance that the B-52h can use, thats proven to sink ships fairly well that is not represented in the game as a unit and not represened in the attack stats of the aircraft.

3) Although i now believe i was wrong in my beliefs of just how much a B-52h can carry in one load,we still have a rather large gap in the amount of missiles it can carry, vs the amount of missiles points it gets in the game.75 vs 340.
BUT we have the ammo thats nots represented by units , and that is represented by the attack stats as always on the aircraft taking up room that the could concievably be used to up the missile points.


So, currently.I think on
1 and 2: That any ordance that we know exists that is not represented as a unit in game like alot of missiles and bombs are,should be used as the measure for determining the atatck strength vs a particular target.
So like Draken said earlier on,the system should either include the jdams as seperate units or up the attack strength to represent their usage.

3:Not sure what to say here.We are never going to get an exact capacity to match a real world load, becuase there are too many variables dependant upon the contents of the load.I find it very unlikely the goats will push this far into "complexity" on this.
Nobles idea of removing the deafualt attack from heavy bombers and making them load for each run with ordance represented by units (like most key missiles and bombs are) is somehting i like very much on the surface.
BUT its very micro and makes getting the capacity right even more important.

Now as for the carpet bombing of ships.I still have no idea how to support my belief on this.I still have found no tests to look at for basing a decision on,beyond my belief.
So ill keep looking.

To me it just seems very unlikely that a B-52H can lay a huge path of destruction over a large area, but would be unable to catch a ship in such an area bombing with multiple hits.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7520611793

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a5_1176718184

And thats just one b-52, multiple that by 17.
Lets no forget what a few skyhawks accomplished.Is a B-52 not a more dangerous force than a few skyhawks ?Are 17 B-52s not a more powerful force than an equal amount of skyhawks,even when all using the same low tech bombs ?
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

Okay, made some very minor progress.Not something id hang my hat on, but its at least a very small start .

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Ys ... d=16&gl=us

A part of interest.
Three Lincoln bombers, eachcarrying 14 bombs, flew directly from Amberley in Queensland – a 9 hour non-stop return flight. EightMustangs and three Beaufighters, which were to follow the bombings with rockets and machine gun fire,arrived in South Australia (at Mallala) from New South Wales, the day before. It was anticipated that, withsuch a small target, any direct hits on the Quorna would call for extremely accurate bombing. In what was undoubtedly an anticlimax to the exercise, the steamer was hit on the bombers' second run and sank withinsix minutes – before the short-range planes had even left Mallala!
yes , its weak. BUT its the first thing ive found that is after ww2, even if only by the skin of its teeth :lol: .

Heavy bombers, after ww2, small number sink ship.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Post by Draken »

:D

Take a look at the picture of the "ship"

:D

No wonder it got sunk! :D

Sorry... WWII airplanes and an early XX Century cargo ship.... This one doesn't count... Keep looking
Last edited by Draken on Apr 26 2007, edited 1 time in total.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

tkobo,

I don't think anyone is going to argue that a heavy bomber "cannot" sink a ship -- I am sure it can be done.

However, in the economics of applying military force, why would you (or more specifically a country) use a valuable strategic platform that is limited in numbers to accomplish a mission that can be done better by a much cheaper platform and a guided missle?

Having read your recent AAR, it is quite clear you are a heavy bomber advocate. Perhaps if the US had 6000 B-52's like you do in your campaign they would use them for sinking ships, and other tactical missions as well.

Regards,
Feltan
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

BUT the game IS pretty much currently making the argument that heavy bombers cant sink ships .

Ill go back to my opening thoughts.

Why cant 17 heavy bombers sink a single ship ?
Even worse why cant 100+ heavy bombers sink a ship ?

One unit of B-52s can eqaul 17 aircraft.Yet it would take MANY attacks by that one unit of 17 B-52s to sink a single ship as the game stands now (without using ordance that is represented as seperate units)

Thats the whole point that started this balance question.

I have severe doubts that it would take more than one attack by 17 b-52s to sink a single ship, let alone one as small as a patrol boat.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

tkobo wrote:...Why cant 17 heavy bombers sink a single ship ?
Even worse why cant 100+ heavy bombers sink a ship ?...
You're probably right that SR2010 had the stats too low, but this won't be looked at for SR2020 until we are at the beta stages I suspect, and if we start to forget, there is a link to this thread as an issue to be tested. For SR2010, you could always mod your equipment file to double or triple the surface attack value...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Post by Draken »

tkobo wrote: Why cant 17 heavy bombers sink a single ship ?
Even worse why cant 100+ heavy bombers sink a ship ?
Maybe because their crews were fomer (sr2010) helicopter pilots! You are lucky that they can find their home bases... :D

(Don't worry Goats, I will not let you forget about the heli pilots...)
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum
-
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

You are lucky that they can find their home bases
I am ? They can ? :P

Not my pilots for some reason :cry:

hhahahahahhaha
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

Draken wrote:
tkobo wrote: Why cant 17 heavy bombers sink a single ship ?
Even worse why cant 100+ heavy bombers sink a ship ?
Maybe because their crews were fomer (sr2010) helicopter pilots! You are lucky that they can find their home bases... :D

(Don't worry Goats, I will not let you forget about the heli pilots...)
HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

Brilliant!

Regards,
Feltan
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

Heavy bombers vs cities looks to be in need of love also.

Ive now seen a unit 17 heavy bombers carpet bomb a city and kill 3-5 people on average per unit of heavy bombers to attack :oops:

Im watching this occur now, and after some further watching it appears to be a scale issue.

As the city gets closer and closer to being destroyed,the amount of people killed by the bombers goes down(seems to scale downwards).

Problem is, ive now repeatedly seen a city with a population of 6K+, only lose 3-5 people while being carpet bombed by a unit of 17 heavy bombers.

So,it looks like its the scaling that needs to be adjusted,not the overall damage.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

Post by bergsjaeger »

:lol: Carpet bombing cities Tkobo? Anyway, I moved away from any type of bombers. They didn't suit me much. Sure, they are a good missile platform, but to use them for a standard attack seems useless to me. For what it cost for one B-2 squad I could have several F/b's squads, which does a number on anything I want destroyed.

But the question behind why a squad of bombers takes awhile to destroy a ship, think of it this way, the ship isn't sitting dead in the water, but is move around in the hex. If the ship's not where the bombs hit at, then the bombs can't very well destroy the ship.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
moondrift
Captain
Posts: 140
Joined: May 30 2004

Post by moondrift »

Of Course you forget that the main reason that heavy bombers versus ships is a watse of resources is that to send them vs 1 ship is ridiculously expensive in terms of weapons, fuel etc but also if you were to send them vs a fleet Ship bourne AA weapons are significant. Probably more so than most land based systems as the main threat comes from missiles and the aircraft that carry them. So they are quite formidable. I feel that it would be daft to send them against such targets just due to the defensive capabilities.
Post Reply

Return to “Balance”