Heavy bomb for Raf

[The New BK Champion]

Hey, I have just came up with an idea.

After air docs nerf some time ago both raf and luft lost their arty (nebel, 95mm cromwell), both docs have been crippeled a bit. But there is still a significant difference between them: ability to deal with defences.

Both docs have anti-tank and anti-inf call in planes, but only luft has a dedicated anti emplacement run, while Raf has none (0) ways to attack emplacements, except direct assault. You can say flame run can work, but it does 0 damage to bunkers, and all it can do to other emplacements is to decrew. Smart player will never let you capture or attack while his emplacement is decrewed. On the other hand if you have no AA luft stuka patrol will decimate all your emplacements in the area.

My idea is to go give Raf heavy bombing run on such conditions:

1. The bomb itself would work a little bit like V1 from older versions, BUT this kind of mechanism has realistic and gameplay excuse.
First of all the bomb would be historic Tallboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_(bomb)) earthquake bomb, which was used 8 June 1944 – 25 April 1945, just about our time setting.

2.It's purpose was exculsively to destroy concentrate bunkers - thus it would be useless vs tanks/inf, only incredible high damage vs structures. Possibly 1 hit death.

Spoiler: show

These were "Earthquake" bombs—a concept he had first proposed in 1939. The designs were very aerodynamic, allowing them to exceed the speed of sound as they fell from 22,000 ft (6,700 m). The tails were designed with offset fins causing the bombs to spin as they fell. Using the same principle as a spinning top, this enabled them to resist being deflected, thereby improving accuracy. They had casings of high grade steel, much stronger than the typical World War II bomb so that they would survive hitting a hardened surface, or penetrate deep into the ground.

Though these bombs might be thought of as 'bunker busters' today, in fact the original 'earthquake' theory was more complex and subtle than simply penetrating a hardened surface. The Earthquake bombs were designed not to strike a target directly, but to impact beside it, penetrate under it, and create a 'camouflet' or large buried cavern at the same time as delivering a shock wave through the target's foundations. The target then collapses into the hole, no matter how hardened it may be. The bombs had strong casings because they needed to travel through rock rather than reinforced concrete, though they could perform equally well against hardened surfaces. In an attack on the Valentin U-Boat pens at Farge, two Grand Slams went through the 15 ft (4.5 m) reinforced concrete hardening—equalling or exceeding the best current penetration specifications.

3. It was dropped from Avro Lancaster bomber, so there is no need for a plane model to appear on the map. It literally falls from 5km away from the sky. Quite like V1 did, but you can't run away with an emplacement anyway..

Spoiler: show

Tallboy was designed to be dropped from an optimal altitude of 18,000 ft (5,500 m) at a forward speed of 170 mph (270 km/h), hitting at 750 mph (1,210 km/h).[3] It made a crater 80 ft (24 m) deep and 100 ft (30 m) across and could go through 16 ft (4.9 m) of concrete.[1]

The weight of the Tallboy (approximately 12,000 lb (5.4 t)) and the high altitude required of the bombing aircraft meant that the Avro Lancasters used had to be specially adapted. Armour plating and even defensive armament were removed to reduce weight, and the bomb-bay doors had to be adapted.

4. The single bomb can destory only 1 emplacement (or a few it put veeeery close to each other), so it wont deny any axis defence line. But on the other hand it can help to create a breach, so Raf inf can advance. It's really hard to play Raf now. There is literally nothing you can do vs emplacements. Especially AA flaks and 88mm that outranges any mortar or gun.

Tell me what you think. My idea doesnt break balance, is not op. It would be unavoidable, but that could be balanced with late CP unlocking (possibly the flame bomb run) and high price or cooldown (200 ammo?)

[Krieger Blitzer]

Doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

[Warhawks97]

A nice idea. But you kow what, brits even had a over 9000 kg bomb available:D
This Bomb also sunk the German Battleship Tirpitz just as a side note.


I think this is the situation you are talking about right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYILYAd2fXQ

great game.


Damn, this idea is really fucking great.

Add some sort of engine sound so that you know something bigger is coming like the V1. So everybody can run away and the bunker will die shortly after.
Theoretically the 88 guns would work as high altitude AA with 8 km vertical range but i think we dont need that:D

[Krieger Blitzer]

Throughout that game, it just might be worth noting that AA of Axis was quite clearly undermining against most of the incoming Allied planes, despite that they might be actually more expensive than the Allied counterparts.. and supposedly more powerful, needless to say the AA units fielded by the Axis side were far from few... And btw, it wasn't the only time where I've seen the Axis side fielding many AA units but without a considerable success!
I actually find it a bit strange that generally AA by Axis side, is often not as effective as anyone would expect them to be.. for some reason.

[The New BK Champion]

Lol, devs are on holidays

[The New BK Champion]

Devs plz stop ignoring plz, yay or nay

[kwok]

Devs have specifically mentioned no new changes are going into the upcoming patch and that will be their focus until release. Until then, I'm holding off on my own bitchfest on the luft doc and general artillery spamming.

[ShadowIchigo]

please please please!!

[MarKr]

Yeah cuz when the topic is 4 pages of shitstorm and insults you afford to post multiple replies to pleople who need to hear "no" 100 times. But when there is a topic where something constructive is proposed and people agree on this, it gets ignored. How am I supposed to know if you have read it or not. Also dev's replies help to develop the discussion, for example pointing out things we dont know about like engine limitations etc.

It is because I still haven't learned my leson and try to discuss with people with whom it makes no sense to discuss with because they never take "no" for an answer.
I did not say anything here because it was said in the past that addition of new units is not something we want to go for, but it is true that we added now the GrB39 so it might create a feeling we backed off from that. I sort of think that no matter what I say, the answer will be "but this and also that" and after a few posts it will end in "devs don't understand" Anyway:

Several issues with this. The first issue coming with any new thing requested for implementation (just as you said in another discussion lately) is this:

Do you have working model of 90mm gun?

except the question is if you have working model of that bomb. If you want to suggest to use the V1 model or something similar that we already use then I would say it is not a good idea because sooner or later some nitpicker will bombard me with questions of "why does the bomb look like V1 when it was different"?

Another thing is where would you place it? The current unlock tree of RAF is full and if I'm not mistaken the command panel of RAF doc is also full. That would mean that the new ability would need to replace something else. What would that be?

And the last issue I have with this - we're trying to get the game to a state where no doctrine can work completely independatly from others (so each docrine has some weakeness). Yes, some docrines still have relatively no weakness but that is planned to change. Currently RAF doc has harder time dealing with emplacements (which is intended) and this ability would take that weakness away.

[Krieger Blitzer]

And the last issue I have with this - we're trying to get the game to a state where no doctrine can work completely independatly from others (so each docrine has some weakeness). Yes, some docrines still have relatively no weakness but that is planned to change. Currently RAF doc has harder time dealing with emplacements (which is intended) and this ability would take that weakness away.

I think if docs are reworked.. specifically if Luft doc would lose Panther.D or Hetzer, then Pz3.M could find a place... There is a fully working model.

it would be mainly AT unit, no HE rounds.. but just a decent armor, low HP, good speed & mobility, cheap cost and a quick firing 50mm cannon that doesn't deal too much damage per hit, but so far has good penetration.

==================================================================

Also, something I wanted to say particularly about "making docs no more work independently" as I probably can't pretend my satisfaction of this statement... You see, I know that you are trying to achieve "team-work" gameplay. However, you must understand that such a thing would also have huge negative drawbacks. First of all, it will become nearly impossible to play with random people.. but only players you know and often communicate with, at this point.. i can imagine the player-base seriously shrinking.

Not to mention that not always enough players are even available.. thus, sometimes ur only option is 1v1 games. While I'm afraid this way 1v1 games won't be possible anymore after the docs rework... It's not about if Bk Mod is designed for 1v1 or not, but you have to consider the fact that 1v1 games are one of the most played game types.. it's just the reality! Because 1v1 is simply a crucial part of CoH. Therefore I always believed that the devs shouldn't completely ignore 1v1 games, otherwise.. the mod itself will be ignored by players.

Thus, I believe no doctrine should be completely stripped off their multi-role purpose. Some docs can be better in certain specializations, but definitely shouldn't be completely helpless against others.

So, shortly I might have to draw your attention again.. that making docs the way you want it to be, might very harmful to the player-base.
That I have just told.

[The New BK Champion]

The problem is not that I want new stuff for RAF. The problem is that Raf has 0 indirectly firing weapon beside the cheapest mortars. If you say that the bomb is not going to happen from reasons, I'd like to talk about other possible solutions.

[MarKr]

RAF has basic CW mortar and also the Commandos mortar. Few patches ago even the Commandos mortar got smoke barrage. This barrage has range of 70. Emplacements have rarely this range and even if they do, they have lower sight range so they would need a spotter to shoot at this or longer range (unless the emplacement is howitzer). Smoke barrage can be shot into FoW. Once you cover the emplacement in smoke the accuracy is lowered by (iirc) 75%, so then you can rush them and kill them. This is in case of a single emplacement, if oponent has a defensive line then you need airstrikes. If oponent has no AA there then the airstrikes are likely to punch a hole in the line, if there are AA units, you should then target the the smoke at the AA, then they have lower accuracy and planes are a lot less likely to get shot down.

As already said, every doctrine should have a weakness. This is the case for RAF. They can deal with it but they need to give more effort to do it. They don't have powerful arty abilities to kill emplacements outright, true, on the other hand no other CW doctrine has as strong infantry as RAF but they have easier ways to push through defenses.

[The New BK Champion]

What you say is true, but on the other hand what I am saying comes from my experience. Casting smoke is like a huge advertisement that you are going to attack. Only very unexperienced player would miss that hint. Even if you cover the emplacement itself with smoke, there are still enemy squads that crawl around it. Just some smg inf nearby and u are done for. I am just saying that giving the player only one, single way (rushing) to deal with emplacements (which are a basis of 1 doc, and widely available for others) is very limiting. Not to mention that this way is very resource and micro demnading, up to the point most players would never even try rushing at all.

[MarKr]

OK, so you shoot smoke at emplacements and opponent knows something is coming. AA emplacements are not going move anywhere and if mobile AA units are used, they either stay in the position (and then their accuracy gets nerfed) or it needs to move and on the move they have accuracy penalties too so one way or another the AA efficiency is nerfed.

When I came to BK mod, RAF had no smoke on Commandos mortar, they had no arty Cromwell (was added and later removed after I had joined in) and even without these options the RAF doctrine was considered very strong. It is true that even very good RAF players got lazy after addition of arty Cromwell and started the overuse the "shoot arty everywhere" approach to most situations but before the addition of the Cromwell (which was btw. done only because people cried that RAF has no arty unit so we added it under the pressure of loud players but we never considered it really needed). So how is it now such problem now when people were capable to find viable ways to win even without any abilities such as the one you ask for?

[The New BK Champion]

Well, let them come and say how good they do vs emplacements then. For now 4 people here agreed with me that raf is doing too poorly with emplacements.

Well u say u added cromwell because people cried for no arty. Then you took it away, it's logical that the problem reappeared. I tried to create a solution that is similiar to luft one's stuka patrol. If you leave it as it is, there will be unbalance - luft can kill things both with smoke rushes and planes. RAF only has rushes.

Luft also has best emplacements in game, highest tier tank etc.. but comparing those two is not the point.

They are not meant to be the same I know, but this is not about doc design. This is about the fact that leaving only 1 way to deal with something allows the enemy to be "always" prepared for this. It's like hitting the wall with your head

[MarKr]

It was originally request with the argument that at least some arty unit is in every doctrine only RAF is missing this. This was a problem because every Axis doctrine had at least some version of Nebelverfer (or in case of BK doc Maultier) - these were quite effective despite the fact that people simply fired arty anywhere where they expected enemy presence without knowing if anyone is really there - after addition of the arty Cromwell this started to be the case for RAF too. But then the number of available arty units in doctrines was reduced and so the original reason for adding the arty Cromwell was gone and thus was again removed.

And the fact that people agree to something is not necessarily an indicator that something is needed, people will ususally agree to anynthing that will make their life easier and this would be exactly that - instead of performing some micro-intensive maneuver, you will be well off with just one click. Why would they be against it? And I also suspect that a specific player would soon after come with something like "RAF has now the bomb to destroy emplacements even when emplacements are meant to be the weakness there...now the BK doc should get some emplacement killer too!"

What do you mean by this: "luft can kill things both with smoke rushes and planes. RAF only has rushes." RAF has planes too - I understand that most people want to see emplacements completely destroyed but you can burn them out and prevent re-capturing. Especially if we make the infantry-carried flamethrowers kill emplacement crews very quickly, then you can burn the crews with flame bombs, then move in with some combination of tanks and sappers with flamethrowers and if enemy tries to capture the emplacements again, you will burn them out again before they can kill anything. I know this means relying on something that is yet to be introduced but changing something here and next patch changing it again back because of the flamethrower changes, is sort wasting of time.

[Krieger Blitzer]

And I also suspect that a specific player would soon after come with something like "RAF has now the bomb to destroy emplacements even when emplacements are meant to be the weakness there...now the BK doc should get some emplacement killer too!"

I think that this "specific player" is already saying it, even right now... :p

Thus, I believe no doctrine should be completely stripped off their multi-role purpose. Some docs can be better in certain specializations, but definitely shouldn't be completely helpless against others.

[Warhawks97]

Also, something I wanted to say particularly about "making docs no more work independently" as I probably can't pretend my satisfaction of this statement... You see, I know that you are trying to achieve "team-work" gameplay. However, you must understand that such a thing would also have huge negative drawbacks. First of all, it will become nearly impossible to play with random people.. but only players you know and often communicate with, at this point.. i can imagine the player-base seriously shrinking.

Hmm... where did i know that feeling from?

Is this point a serious one?



@Markr: This bomb is the opposite of "bombing everywhere where i expect enemies". It would have a long cooldown and a sound to hear it coming just like the old V1.

You can still outcamp RAF by using multiple emplacments + cheap close range defense infantry against rush attempts and or additional AA tanks and laying down mines etc.

Its just a ability to give RAF momentum. You wont win by just dropping it somewhere. Its there to knock out perhaps a criucial target and to bring dynamic into the game combined with a rush etc. Its not like all this nobrainer endless range 0 cooldown 0 CP 0 cost spam artillery.


Sure, the tec tree is full and also the ability channel which is a valid point. I just want to say that this ability is the opposite of "arty everywhere" and "get lazy".

[Krieger Blitzer]

Is this point a serious one?

Well, yes.. at least serious in the sense that you can't be really relaxed as long as we don't know yet how exactly MarKr is going to modify doctrines.. since he hasn't really announced any details about that. So, my feelings are simply a deduction of what could happen.. thus I had to express my worries regarding the matter.

Shortly, if Bk Mod turns into a pure team-play game that is only possible in 4v4 games, then I am afraid most players will quit. Given the fact that 2v2 and 3v3 are the most played game types.. and even 1v1 is more played than 4v4 when not enough players are available sometimes.. therefore i believe that adjusting doctrines to be working only in 4v4 scenarios.. could be the cause for many players quitting. Not to mention that most players usually leave the lobby whenever it's 4v4 due to unstable internet connections or weak computers. Lastly, you need to keep in mind as well that there are only a few 4v4 maps that are actually playable.. while a lot of great 2v2 and 3v3 maps exist on the other hand.

All these are reasons why Bk Mod doctrines can't be adjusted for 4v4 games... I hope my message has been clearly delivered to the devs here.

[Warhawks97]

Shortly, if Bk Mod turns into a pure team-play game that is only possible in 4v4 games, then I am afraid most players will quit. Given the fact that 2v2 and 3v3 are the most played game types..

well, why should they? Those who have learned to play allied over the past years (even in 1 vs 1) wont quit just bc the axis doctrines will be changed a bit towards a bit more teamplay or simply handicapped in dealing with certain situations (Like RAF vs emplacments apparently in this special case).

[Krieger Blitzer]

I'm just saying it's a lot better to add more versatility to all doctrines, including Allied docs if needed.. rather than making Axis docs more specialized.

So, if some Axis docs are blamed to be more versatile.. then they should be kept as they are, while modifying Allied docs to be more versatile as well.

And not the opposite!
Otherwise, the game will be nearly unplayable except in 4v4 games, which isn't possible most of the times.. for the reasons previously mentioned.