Matrix Games Forums

BillRunacre wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:54 pm

LoneRunner wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:42 pm In addition to improving fighter attack performance against strategic bombers, I think anti-air upgrades on resources should have an attack value. Right now, anti-air on resources only reduces the effectiveness of bombing. Strategic bombers don't incur any losses from resource anti-air.

Historically, anti-air defenses surrounding cities and mines caused a lot of bomber casualties.

I've just run a test and upgraded resources do inflict losses on Strat Bombers.

For instance, a level 1 Strategic Bomber has predicted losses of 1:2 against a resource with level 2 AA, but 4:2 against one at level 5.

Thank you for checking Bill. I played a couple MP games where I was conducting massive bombing campaigns and incurred no losses due to anti-air on resources. As a result I assumed that resource AA could not cause casualties. But I was upgrading my bombers as fast as I could. Perhaps his AA was not upgraded enough to hit the bombers. My mistake. Thanks for verifying.

HarrySmith wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 12:42 am Hi Bill,
Good to hear to did a test with Strategic bombers on resources or cities with anit air upgrade. You mentioned though it was level 1 Strat bombers. Have you tried it with level 5 Strat bombers against same air defence upgrades?
I feel the answer is to give fighters, air defence improved performance against strategic bombers or to restrict Strat bombers to one research chit.

Yes, I had a variety of upgrade levels in play, I was just giving one example above to show that AA resource upgrades do increase the potential damage to Strat Bombers.

LoneRunner wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:56 am

BillRunacre wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:54 pm

LoneRunner wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:42 pm In addition to improving fighter attack performance against strategic bombers, I think anti-air upgrades on resources should have an attack value. Right now, anti-air on resources only reduces the effectiveness of bombing. Strategic bombers don't incur any losses from resource anti-air.

Historically, anti-air defenses surrounding cities and mines caused a lot of bomber casualties.

I've just run a test and upgraded resources do inflict losses on Strat Bombers.

For instance, a level 1 Strategic Bomber has predicted losses of 1:2 against a resource with level 2 AA, but 4:2 against one at level 5.

Thank you for checking Bill. I played a couple MP games where I was conducting massive bombing campaigns and incurred no losses due to anti-air on resources. As a result I assumed that resource AA could not cause casualties. But I was upgrading my bombers as fast as I could. Perhaps his AA was not upgraded enough to hit the bombers. My mistake. Thanks for verifying.

That's ok, and yes, if there's a significant differential the AA doesn't help much.

I think once the patch is out with some changes things should be a bit more costly for the Strat Bombers, though hopefully it will still be a valid strategy, just not as uber-powerful as it can be now!

Hi Bill,
Thanks for update, I think you guys have worked out the options that you feel should alleviate the current imbalance with strategic bombers and I look forward to seeing how that works in the next update. Thank you to all involved for looking into this issue.
Harry

In my mod I increased Strategic Bombers purchase cost and limited their research to 1 chit.
Also tweaked aircraft upgrades a bit. In particular I increased the range upgrade cost from 5% to 10% for SB and lowered the fighter defense upgrade from 1.0 to 0.5 per upgrade.

I also lowered the starting ranges of fighters by 1 and the starting view range of several aircraft. The spy fighter issue is real and in any case if you want recon you can now manually fly out and spot in all weather. Deleted strategic bomber from Japanese production queue because it can do some cheesy things and Japan didn't have strategic bombers (no Sallys don't count).

Thought process behind this is that the B-29 with its glorious payload speed and incredible range should be EXPENSIVE because it was.

Hi Chernobyl,
What you have done sounds good. Please post feedback on forum on how it seems to play out.

With the ability for all weather flying in the latest upgrade, there is an argument that aircraft should be more expensive.

HarrySmith wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:43 am Hi Chernobyl,
What you have done sounds good. Please post feedback on forum on how it seems to play out.

I haven't done any testing. I'm a lurker and I never actually finish my mod, I just keep playing around with it

But in general I think it would be good to beef up AA, reduce the escort range of carriers, reduce ranges for fighters including vision range, and make heavy bombers more expensive.