BGForums

These pics show just how bad the imbalance is.In this example the Fighters are 4 times more damaging than the Bombers to ships.

And as you might figure from the stats those pics show, the fighters take out ships at a much more acceptable pace.

Just something more to help with the balancing when it begins.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

It should be remembered that the B-52 does indirect damage. If it was attacking a hex with 7 boats, it would damage all 7 with every attack. Indirect attack units usually get much lower attack values as a result. And hit accuracy is a part of the "attack value" and it is much more accurate to shoot a cannon or fire a Maverick at a boat than to try and drop a big bomb on it from 10,000ft.

But I still think we'll increase the value, just not sure too what...

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

The operational ceiling of a B-52 is 50,000 ft, and in a conventional iron bomb saturation bombing mission they would likely be at 40,000 ft or more.

However, that isn't what they train for most often. B-52's of today will come in at approximately 200 ft. off the deck and lauch stand off nuclear cruise missiles. The initial "conventional" iron bomb runs in Afghanistan were terrible -- poor accuracy and many mission coordination problems. The high altitude level bombing mission is something not trained for anymore -- the crews had to learn how to do it from absolute scratch.

Regards,
Feltan

P.S. If anything, a strong argument can be made for worse statistics against ships rather than better.

_________________
ETA Five Minutes ......

Back to this again

As already shown, the simple fact is that weapons types usable by bombers are NOT factored into the default attack of the bombers and are not avialable to the bombers as missile units.

And as the Devs have correctly already said, this needs to be adjusted .



Fixed

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

I think you missed the idea that Feltan was getting at. You're correct that the "attack value" of the bomber represents the damage it can do/accuracy to attack with a payload of conventional bombs and not cruise missiles but as I understand Feltan's comment, that is why he thinks the values are fine. How much damage could a B-52 really do to a single ship from 40,000 feet without precision weapons? His point is that if you want your B-52s to do real damage to ships, load them with ASMs.

And we have agreed that an increase is likely but right now I'm only thinking of increasing the value between 50-150%. I agree with Feltan that carpet bombing ships is wasteful and relatively ineffective.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Correct. If carpet bombing with dumb iron bombs was effective agaisnt ships, it would be a practice today -- and it is not. Furthermore, such technology was available in WWII -- it was tried, and failed miserably.

Regards,
Feltan

_________________
ETA Five Minutes ......

Feltan-
Please, please, please STOP putting doctrine ahead of reason.

If bombing ships with skyhawks loaded with iron bombs wasnt effective , no one would do it

Oh WAIT, someone did do it .
AND WHY did they do it ?Was it their doctrine ? Was it the best choice in the whole wide world ?

Of course not, they did it becuase it was the BEST they could do under their current circumstance.

SOOOOOOOO..... again ,stop acting like some doctrine zombie who can only see what he's told to see.

I mean geez, even even a third world nation had the smarts to realize you do what you can with what you can.

AND remember the sinkex tests, in which ONLY ONE B-52 attacked.NOW multiply that by 17.
AND remember in the game ONE full unit of heavy bombers can be MANY aircraft.


Balthagor-
150% increase would put the bombers on par with the fighters.Which though not perfect (like anything ever is ) would be a large step in the right direction.

OR

You could spend the time putting in all the weapon systems that each individual bomber can use

Call me silly but choice one seems the way to go.

Both-
Remember the bombs and missile a bomber can use that are not represented in the game for bombers.
Those alone justify a greatly increased attack strength for bombers.

But if for some reason you still cant accept the need, picture 17 b-52s attacking a ship .All dropping 4-8 smart bombs at the target.

Now honesty tell me you "think" that ship would survive said attack once.
Let alone 2 or 3 such attacks.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Hmmm... I wonder what AEGIS (or equivalent), which is designed to try and hit very fast missiles, would do to a bunch of relatively slow and clumsy smart bombs? Considering how far they would have to fall to keep the big slow clumsy bombers away from the ship's AA, the anti missile systems would have all day to knock them out of the air.

_________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill

Thats a good point.
And you know, on ships that actually have such a defense ,said defense should be adjusted also ,to show this.

But since most cargo ships dont, its hardly a reason to require 17 B-52s multiple attacks to sink a single such cargo ship.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Well... It's VERY different to drop a couple of dumb bomb from an argentinian A-4 flying at ~100' ASL than a hundred or more from 40,000' of a B-52.

The real issue is not the effectiviness of the impact and explosion of an iron bomb in a ship but IF you can hit the ship with the iron bomb.

An even that... How many countries have access to strategic bombers? Not much... This is one of those issues that won't change much the gameplay

_________________
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

Try hitting a small moving target with a shotgun at 100 yards!

If you B-52 are lucky ,perhaps one bomb will hit the ship....

_________________
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

Hhehehe, yes, despite how much im pushing for this, it is NOT a major priority to me for the game.
Many, many, many more things id rate higher.Still ,if time allows its something id like to see made better.

As for thr 40k', i dont think so.I doubt VERY much the B-52 were flying at 40k' when they hit the ships in the Sink-Ex exercises with their jdams.
I'd probably buy (for now at least,til i find the data)25k'.
Which by the way is a tested altitude for f-18s dropping this weapon.

By the way, i recently came across some interesting info on the sinkex exercises.
Word is the attackers are told NOT to target critical areas on the ship, as the first priority of the testing is to provide a target for ALL participants before the ships get sunk.
So the goal is to hit it ,without sinking it,til everyones had their shots.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

_________________
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

And ?

You do know a jdam is just an iron bomb with a kit slapped on right ?

And that the game doesnt model jdams in the b-52s default attack ,nor as a seperately loadable attack type (missile unit) ?

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

I think he's saying that JDAMs aren't just iron bombs.

And by the way, RELAX.