Retributar Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Strategic Bombing has been discussed at length some many month's ago!...however, i fail to see it really implemented in the game to the depth i had been expecting!. See Refresher's Below: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000350#000000 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000352 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000887#000004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Its working fine for me as Axis, 2 bombers at level 3 or better really wrecks havoc in Russia, bomb a city to 0, then attack, not good for the Ruskies. As Allies, if you get level 3 or better, you should be able to keep Benelux, German Mine, Paris and possibly 2 other cities at zero. That can easily be over 60mpps per turn with 2 bombers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted May 15, 2006 Author Share Posted May 15, 2006 Thank's Blashy for the 'Other Perspective'...and analysis!. It's just that i had envisioned the Allied Bomber Campaign to be more 'Driven'!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Dozer Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 well we could always add more bombers to be being built so that way you could have more if thats what the driven part is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Even with the 2 free bombers you get (UK and US) you can at least keep the two Axis mines at 0 and/or force them to keep air fleets in guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 IMHO the best use of bombers is to get the cities below 5 while your troops do the D-day. Axis cannot operate reinforcements thus Allies have a safer french campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Originally posted by hellraiser: IMHO the best use of bombers is to get the cities below 5 while your troops do the D-day. Axis cannot operate reinforcements thus Allies have a safer french campaign. In preparation of the D-Day yes, but before you get there they will do a valuable job reducing the German MPPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Don't forget the cost to the Axis of having to invest in AA, upgrade all those targets, and perhaps having to keep an airfleet or two in France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Strategic Bombing leads to destroyed cities which were usualy BETTER do defend then before. Breslau was destroyed on purpose by the germans to improve the defenses of this so called "fortress". Stalingrad & Monte Cassino should be an example enough why it might not be such a bright idea to bomb defended cities a la "crumble to dust". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Blashy: bomb a city to 0 Wish there was a way to know what damage you do :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Wish there was a way to know what damage you do :/ BB, You are WAY up there in the air. Lots of drifting clouds Even in clearest weather, and Plenty of FLAK causing evasive maneuver, Not to mention, Shrouds of smoke arising All over the just-bombed ground, How could you know, very soon, Given tardiness of eventual reports, Whether by recon or "friendly spotters" In the area, Just what damage you have done? Though, Might not be bad idea to consider Some random, And occasional (... say, ~ 20% chance of an informative pop-up?) feed-back. But, In general, I cannot imagine High altitude bombing providing you With - either accurate, or timely information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 No, but the Mosquito zipping by afterwards usually did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 No, but the Mosquito zipping by afterwards usually did. Valid point. So... make the informing pop-up Closer to 50 % OK by me. Thing is, though, from a gaming stand point, Would be better, IMO, if We didn't always KNOW for SURE The PRECISE damage. Consider: 1) You bomb a port and city, say - Trondheim, in preparation for amphib landing by W-Allies. Should you know the EXACT condition Of the port? Or the City? 2) You bomb a resource, say - mine in France. Should you know the EXACT destruction? Seems as though it would be better To not know everything. Should you then switch targets? Or hit the same one again? Keeping "fog of war" intact for bombers Makes for a better tactical game is all. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Oh, I agree. Think we discussed this before. I'd like a popup with some variable amount of info (correct or not), not full disclosure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Originally posted by xwormwood: Strategic Bombing leads to destroyed cities which were usualy BETTER do defend then before. Breslau was destroyed on purpose by the germans to improve the defenses of this so called "fortress". Stalingrad & Monte Cassino should be an example enough why it might not be such a bright idea to bomb defended cities a la "crumble to dust". Those cities were destroyed through tactical ground explosions by the occupier himself, it was very methodical. ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yogi Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Actually this discussion fits in with an earlier discussion about US MPP's. It seems quite difficult to refelect the historical air power situation in the game. It is hard for the US/UK to build bombers and/or fighters while at the same time keeping up with tech or getting any reasonable sized ground force together. This may mean more MPP growth or the need for additional "free" air units. I have found attempting "strategic bombing" with only two units difficult. One or two Axis fighter units in the west (especially if higher tech) can wreak havoc on the allied bombers and escourts. If the Allies try to keep the air units at strength (or create more units) they may find themselves with little left to take care of everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LampCord Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Originally posted by Yogi: Actually this discussion fits in with an earlier discussion about US MPP's. It seems quite difficult to refelect the historical air power situation in the game. It is hard for the US/UK to build bombers and/or fighters while at the same time keeping up with tech or getting any reasonable sized ground force together.The way I've dealt this is by having US and UK specialize: US researches Industrial Tech and air techs and concentrates on cranking out mostly air units. UK researches Production (so it can use transfered US MPP's more efficiently) along with ground unit tech and some ASW. Not very historic but it works out well because the US air units can be transferred accross the sea in 1 turn while the ground units are cranked out right in the UK where they do the most good. This completely takes any naval interdiction of transport units away from Germans. By having each country specialize in one area, it makes research more efficient than if both countries had to reasearch everything. You end up with kickass US Air Force and equally kick ass UK Infantry and Armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 If I wanted to add a 'free' bomber and or fighter to the US how could I balance this to keep it from becoming really one sided? Maybe give Germany a free level of AA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 I'd like to see it the way it was with rockets in one of the SC1 scenarios. Give them a bomber (or even 2), but have them come out in late 1942 and/or early '43. Each of the units is at 0 lvl tech, and at strength 1 or 2. That way, it takes a while to build them up to strength, and research the tech necessary to make them effective. Not hard to counter with a couple of fighters, but in reality, that was one of the main goals of the bomber campaign in the first place; tie up fighters so that they couldn't be used on the Eastern front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 rleete that is not a bad idea, have them come out low level and low strength, I wonder can we do that with the editor? I will have to check tonight when I get home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yogi Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 The way I've dealt this is by having US and UK specialize: US researches Industrial Tech and air techs and concentrates on cranking out mostly air units. UK researches Production (so it can use transfered US MPP's more efficiently) along with ground unit tech and some ASW. Not very historic but it works out --------- Makes sense just looking at it as a game Lampcord which is perhaps as it should be. I just find it frustrating from an "historic" and American perspective that the US in this game usually can't come close to what the US actually did. The only way I can see correcting this would be to either put in a number of "free" units (air, ground & naval) for the US that appear in increasing numbers from 1942 through 1944 or build in large automatic mpp increases for the US during that same time span. Maybe it could even be set to a toggle on/off as an option for those who prefer not to have the allies get such power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 At this point I tend to agree that USA is IMO still underproducing. I think it could easily be fixed by giving it a few things through the production queue. Ike, AF and Paratroops. And if any tech has been achieved they automatically get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Still, this is before the patch, I prefer to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 I think U.S. underproduction could simply the fixed by giving them a free HQ. That would be a significant boost on its own (consider 2 chits research on IT). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: At this point I tend to agree that USA is IMO still underproducing. I think it could easily be fixed by giving it a few things through the production queue. Ike, AF and Paratroops. And if any tech has been achieved they automatically get it. Speaking of Paratroops with hardcaps why is the U.S. only alowed to build 1 uint didn't they have 3 by the time of D-Day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts