S3 Series

~S~ All,

Off the bat I want to make sure this DOES NOT turn into a thread about buff-tuff, Otto accuracy and a whole bunch of "Bombers go down too easy" or "Bombers are impossible to take down" topics.


That said I want to make this thread about how the events can be historically relevant and yet allow for fun game play and the bombers can pull off their duty looking good!

Yes looking good is really important

The issues I have observed in the last two series and hoping we can eventually arrive on an agreement and fix them.

1. Time
2. Intel
3. Accuracy

Time
====
We have been battling the T+160 finish..

By the combination of the distances, airplanes involved, fuel multiplier last two series have been really tough on the bombers. i.e. either use full possible throttle (including various boost stages available) or risk not finishing on time. Even in BBD where we had a T-30 start this was a huge issue. I think what we need to strive here is that all targets should be achievable by the buffs while flying "90%" throttle.

Why? because having to fly 100% + just does not make for a "good looking" bomber box and a bad looking box just does not get the job done right!

What could we have done better in BBD?
----------------------------------
Enlarged the target area westwards. There were several targets west that would have still made game play interesting.

What could we have done better in OH?
----------------------------------
Fuel multiplier could have been higher (say at .9 or even 1.0), DAR could have been at 40-45 miles instead of the 50 and CVs could have been nearer.

Basically anything we can do so that buffs can fly at a reasonably fast speed and yet have room to maintain the formation would be great. I believe this will not just enhance the buff's experience of the events but also provide the other side with an enhanced game play experience. After all it would be great to talk about busting up a well formed bomber box as opposed to taking out the stranglers.

Intel
===
The object hardness chart is simply inaccurate. Discussions in the forms and testing has proved that that it is way off. In some ways this is a good problem to have. Currently it seems the values are overstated in the chart (at least for OH). So for most part buffs are more than prepared to take out targets we go after, but IMO this leads to less than aggressive plans to get buffs to target and that works against maximizing the potential.

Having this as accurate as possible has the benefit of:

1. Frame CO can use the data to evaluate what to go after and what to defend.
2. Buffs can plan on how to take out the targets best.

What can be done about this?
-------------------------
Whenever brought up in the forums it seems that someone (usually Sleepy ~S~ Thanks sir) will go look into the actual arena settings and let us know what the values are. e.g. in OH (yeah I know we are mid series, but the data has been seen before the side change) the values in the chart vs what was real was quite off.

So I propose an program that will look at the settings and provide the output in form of the objects chart for each series. I am more than happy to help write such a program. I don't need any special access. If someone can provide me how your view of the "real" values look like I can help you write a program to make it available to all.

Accuracy
======

Nothing is sadder than a number of bombers say 10 or more making it to a target dropping all their bombs on what looks like the right place and then having the run called useless because oh a small warehouse which is behind the other 3 and looks a little different stayed up.

In short let's not make the S3s the same capture the flag game as the main.

"Where is it?" "Where is it?" oh one gun on the island to the east..

Instead lets go the Pony Baseball route, "Everyone gets to bat so if the defense made a good play let's air on their side and reward them the out."

What can we do about it?
----------------------
1. Don't rely on the required object list for field closure, sure the game code probably cannot change for this but this can be a subjective call.
2. Don't have points assigned to field closures instead make them object based. e.g. warehouse = .3 points and sub-pen = 3 points or what ever they deserve.


Looking forward to comments and suggestions.

The required list of objects to close a base can be changed at will by the cm. In .show go down and read ot_ nameofobjct 1 0 1 or 0 0 1
First number being 1 means its required, 1st number being 0 meaning it is not. So, You CAN make a list of required object to close any given field/town/vil.
I know that as much as possible jabo trying to use all same settings vis a vis planedmage and weapon values in all arenas.
Points assigned to objects is at his whim of course, but since he has published these values before I felt free to provide relevant information concerning bomb damage values vs object point hardness values. This allows to plan for bombloadout /how many on which target etc. Up to you guys to map out the field and do your own intel as to WHERE these objects are for target assignments.
AS to target hardness, make your case to cm in charge in this case ( jabo)

First off a huge thanks to the CMs who make this all work for us. Im not in any way trying to belittle or whine that it's all wrong. Im simply trying to get the feedback I get from meeting all the buff drivers and trying to get the issues they perceive represented here.

~S~ =vslp= acknowledge the availability of what is needed. No issues there. What Im saying is we should not be using a list of needed objects closure model for the S3s. Instead I'm rooting for a kill 80-95% of the objects on the field and then it will be ruled closed. The exact number is the CMs call based on the series.

Reason:
Unlike the main we usually do not have the luxury to go to the target multiple times. No matter if the list is known and how well we plan, its always possible to leave things standing. We are trying to model historical events. e.g. in BBD when attacking an industrial target say a refinery we leave one warehouse up and the field is not ruled closed. How is this not a successful bomb run? So a ruling based on some high percentage of targets going down would be great.
Also to be clear jabo has been more than gracious on these matters. E.g. again talking about BBD he did rule fields closed with objects standing due to poor AI wingman performance and other issues.

What I'm asking for is this be part of the rules. Again I understand the extra work involved and am more than happy to contribute in any way I can.

About object hardness. As I said at the start of this post Im not complaining that things are too hard. Nor do I want this thread to become about that. Thanks for posting the bomb damage values. Highly helpful.

All I'm saying about object hardness is "Either publish accurate values or don't publish them at all".

For e.g. the published values for shipping in the current chart are:

Boats - 1000
Cargo - 1500
Capital - 2000

You corrected us (in a thread in the current series' Allied forum) informing us.. that the values are:

boats 700
cargo 1000
capital 1500

Or the published value for a Bridge/Dock object is 20,000. Whereas testing shows it's someplace between 1400 to 2100.

Again I'm fully sympathetic towards human error in noting down what the value is set to and what ends up getting published. That is why Im advocating this be generated in an automated fashion, and am willing to help make this happen.

Most buff drivers I talk to are also OK with NOT publishing these numbers at all. This will force us buffs to figure this out for ourselves given the ride and target parameters.

And finally I'd like to reiterate my point about leaving some "breathing room" in terms of getting to target. Keep distances so buffs can get there and back using reasonable throttle settings. "Having to use up boost and run 100% just to make it back on time" is probably the biggest complaint I hear out there.

thanks all for listening.

Salute!

Gotta go with 99% of Nofly ideas, observations, opinions, experience.

Just look at the planning link the buffs have for the current series at Truk. Will be revealed in two weeks, but looks like what we have been doing for last ten or more years or so.

I have a hard time finding such detailed planning stuff for the lite outfits. Hmmm. Oh yeah, we have to take off 20 or 30 minutes early to have a reasonable mission timeline for our landing to comply with the rules. Then there's the damage models for both the buffs and the targets to discuss. And the beat goes on.

If there is one thing with Nofly's ideas that we hould insist upon, and that is field closure/flield destruction criteria.

Gums is strongly against any requirement to blow up 100% of the stuff at any target to get the "big" points. Gameplay would seem realistic if the buffs or strikera simply made a field or target unuseable.

Then there's Nofly's idea to just award victory points for each tgt we buffs destroy. That is the option this old fart would like.

Gums whines....

I really like the idea of buffs flying at 90% to make a nice box, it also helps the escort get back in position after chasing off a wave of attackers. It takes too long to get back in position to defend the bombers, especially the B24. Not a problem with the TBD's, they are way slow.