Jump to content

New DM blast damage.


Recommended Posts

I know a lot of people have noted that with the new DM, that even quite large bombs are reduced in their ability to destroy nearby buildings.

I've just seen these pictures of the blitz and there are some huge craters where the adjacent building's structure are still largely intact.

Also, SC1000 included for interest.

I know we don't know the size of the bombs that caused the damage, and the images may not be representative, (I'm aware there are also images available elsewhere of utter destruction) it's just my point that it is possible for a building to withstand a nearby explosion, and the new DM is by some metric, more realistic now, because it allows this.

\Image may contain: one or more people, sky and outdoorImage may contain: sky, house and outdoorImage may contain: one or more people and outdoorImage may contain: one or more people, flower, sky, outdoor and food

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a bomber pilot, I feel that if the risk vs reward was adjusted for the bomber pilots perhaps there would be less negativity to the change?

You shouldn't need to clear an entire industrial block on your own to make the trip as valuable as dropping a single bomb on a ship as an example. I'm exaggerating, but perhaps a small adjustment might be in order eventually.

 

If the value of an airfield or industrial object was greater, and the requirement to (as we used to say on the WOL server) clear every single hidden crate of vodka from the map to clear an objective reduced then perhaps bomber players would see the change in a different light? I also understand the desire to wait for the dust to settle to ensure the developers don't significantly change this again before map makers spend many hours of their time re-adjusting missions.

 

Edited by =EXPEND=Tripwire
typo
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

Not being a bomber pilot, I feel that if the risk vs reward was adjusted for the bomber pilots perhaps there would be less negativity to the change?

You shouldn't need to clear and entire industrial block on your own to make the trip as valuable as dropping a single bomb on a ship as an example. I'm exaggerating, but perhaps a small adjustment might be in order eventually.

 

If the value of an airfield or industrial object was greater, and the requirement to (as we used to say on the WOL server) clear every single hidden crate of vodka from the map to clear an objective reduced then perhaps bomber players would see the change in a different light? I also understand the desire to wait for the dust to settle to ensure the developers don't significantly change this again before map makers spend many hours of their time re-adjusting missions.

 

Absolutely, it's all about mission design. Ultimately if a target on a MP server needs 6 attacks to count as destroyed before the DM update, it should need 6 attacks after, then it's status quo, surely?

 

I'd like there to be a better measure of what constitutes a successful mission, via in game logic. At the moment it's just like a street fighter health bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I always thought it was weird dropping 2 500 kg from a bf110 and ending the mission with ~17 "facilities" destroyed. Its like wtf are they doing, building buildings inside of other buildings?

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting!

 

I've been mainly thinking about damage from fragments:

 

I have a suspicion the a few large fragments would travel much further (including parts of destroyed objects)... So occasionally a rocket would damage a truck which is further away, or occasionally a fighter bomber would be hit by one or two pieces of debris from the ground. IRL there is a big difference between the 'effective zone' and the 'safe zone' around a fragmentation warhead.

 

However, I suspect that the current modelling basically has one size of fragment - without the outliers, the freak pieces of debris or casing of unusual size. I discussed it here:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the exception of very large bombs (tall boy, grand slam and such) buildings mostly get destroyed by gas pressure, which is every effective when the bomb goes off inside the building and not as effective if the bomb explodes outside. Splinters and shock wave are only secondary effects in comparison, but are the ones remaining when the bomb goes off on the outside. For this reason, in real life you would typically take as many as small as possible (still useful) bombs for anti-building attacks and not a single as big as possible one. Against typical city housing, a 50kg bomb would already render a house inhabitable, 100+kg would effectively destroy it and 250+kg would annihilate it (like in the second picture). It also typical that the adjacent houses are structurally still intact, and I'd expect the next houses down the line to still be habitable.

 

The other option of course is fire.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JtD said:

For this reason, in real life you would typically take as many as small as possible (still useful) bombs for anti-building attacks and not a single as big as possible one. Against typical city housing, a 50kg bomb would already render a house inhabitable, 100+kg would effectively destroy it and 250+kg would annihilate it (like in the second picture). It also typical that the adjacent houses are structurally still intact, and I'd expect the next houses down the line to still be habitable.

 

 

And to an extent I think that's what we're seeing in game. Which is great!

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JtD said:

The other option of course is fire.

TBH, for bombing of towns, this was the main option. At the end of the war, the British selected the towns, they wanted to destroy by looking which towns were built with very narrow streets and a lot of wooden buildings, which made them burn very fast and very hot. This way they could destroy towns much easier than with explosives, which they mainly used to make holes in the roof and cause some destruction, so the incendiary bombs started burning inside the house.

It was the only reason, why my hometown Würzburg was attacked march, 16th 1945.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JtD said:

With the exception of very large bombs (tall boy, grand slam and such) buildings mostly get destroyed by gas pressure, which is every effective when the bomb goes off inside the building and not as effective if the bomb explodes outside. Splinters and shock wave are only secondary effects in comparison, but are the ones remaining when the bomb goes off on the outside. For this reason, in real life you would typically take as many as small as possible (still useful) bombs for anti-building attacks and not a single as big as possible one. Against typical city housing, a 50kg bomb would already render a house inhabitable, 100+kg would effectively destroy it and 250+kg would annihilate it (like in the second picture). It also typical that the adjacent houses are structurally still intact, and I'd expect the next houses down the line to still be habitable.

 

The other option of course is fire.

 

 


Thanks for this info. I think this, and a lot of photographic and documentary evidence, point to two main 'issues' with the overall DM. 

1. There are serious limitations as to how the game (or any game, really) can calculate and display detailed damage to static targets. So a nearby bomb blast might cause secondary fires, broken windows, damaged roofs, etc. while the crater itself might buckle foundations or cause other damage. This cannot be represented currently in-game since objects appear either pristine or destroyed, and craters are just textures on the landscape instead of physical objects. Calculating all the various types and subtleties of a bomb blast on a complex-DM structure nearby would likely be impossible given hardware limitations, and triply impossible online. 

2. Current mission and campaign design has been built around the bigger bombs doing substantial damage to nearby or even distant structures. Players have built their tactics and loadouts around those same assumptions. There's an awful lot of responsibility put on the mission designers to balance missions, where previously a fighter bomber with a few big bombs could seriously maul a target area, now it takes many more sorties and a lot more precision to do the same amount of damage. Players that were effective ground attackers before find themselves getting fewer or no ground kills because their bombing accuracy is not precise. Of course this is probably realistic, as hitting and killing even large targets with bombs from fighter bombers was very difficult during the war and a large number of sorties had to be generated against a target to put it out of commission. Online misions are built around the assumption that a great many targets are going to be destroyed in a given mission, and now that is often not the case.

Neither of these issues are directly addressable by the developers, since one is pretty much a hardware limitation and the other is a mission design and player behaviour situation. Mission designers need to overhaul their target areas so that players can achieve the necessary results, and players need to adjust their behaviour and tactics. Thats a lot of work and a bit of a moving target for mission designers online. I know Combat Box's admins are looking into doing a serious overhaul of a lot of their maps due to the new challenges with balance and ground attack. 


 

1 minute ago, Yogiflight said:

TBH, for bombing of towns, this was the main option. At the end of the war, the British selected the towns, they wanted to destroy by looking which towns were built with very narrow streets and a lot of wooden buildings, which made them burn very fast and very hot. This way they could destroy towns much easier than with explosives, which they mainly used to make holes in the roof and cause some destruction, so the incendiary bombs started burning inside the house.

It was the only reason, why my hometown Würzburg was attacked march, 16th 1945.

Indeed, the development of big bombs by the RAF was for this purpose, not for direct destruction.

If big bombs were as destructive at a distance IRL as they were in-game until recently, the RAF would not have had to bother with the use of incendiaries, as the high explosive large bombs would be more efficient. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:



2. Current mission and campaign design has been built around the bigger bombs doing substantial damage to nearby or even distant structures. Players have built their tactics and loadouts around those same assumptions. There's an awful lot of responsibility put on the mission designers to balance missions, where previously a fighter bomber with a few big bombs could seriously maul a target area, now it takes many more sorties and a lot more precision to do the same amount of damage. Players that were effective ground attackers before find themselves getting fewer or no ground kills because their bombing accuracy is not precise. Of course this is probably realistic, as hitting and killing even large targets with bombs from fighter bombers was very difficult during the war and a large number of sorties had to be generated against a target to put it out of commission. Online misions are built around the assumption that a great many targets are going to be destroyed in a given mission, and now that is often not the case.
 

Of course you're right about the mission balance and the workload on the server owners.

However I do think it's a good thing if it requires players to have a think and change their tactics, as it stops the game getting samey (although I can see that it'd annoy some people in the short term). 

I've actually started ground attacking a bit more, as accuracy an appropriate bomb choice is rewarded a bit more now; before it was get the biggest bomb somewhere vaguely near your target and the kill feed rolls like a pinball table's score display.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Of course you're right about the mission balance and the workload on the server owners.

However I do think it's a good thing if it requires players to have a think and change their tactics, as it stops the game getting samey (although I can see that it'd annoy some people in the short term). 

I've actually started ground attacking a bit more, as accuracy an appropriate bomb choice is rewarded a bit more now; before it was get the biggest bomb somewhere vaguely near your target and the kill feed rolls like a pinball table's score display.

 

Yes the players have to do their part to adapt to the new reality, we can't expect the mission designers to 'fix' everything - as Julius Caesar once said, "git gud"*. 

For myself, in MP I usually run 2/3 ground attack to 1/3 fighter sorties - but since the patch I've basically committed to going ground-attack 100% of my missions, just to get a good handle on how things have changed and to improve my skills. I think fewer people are running ground attack online in general out of frustration with the new model, so its even more important to have at least a few guys out there hitting ground targets. It helps that the new DM has basically made the P-47 into the plane it was always supposed to be in terms of survivability. 

I'm still working on getting better, and I'm still hopeless with rockets. I find now too that it is more important than ever to be well-coordinated during the attack run, a bit of yaw puts the bomb substantially off, and makes the difference between a direct hit and kill and a near miss and only minor damage. 

*History does not record Vercingetorix reply. Probably something appropriately Gaul-ing

Edited by RedKestrel
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO with some anecdotal evidence the current DM and bomb damage is a bit off when it comes to the larger bombs.  Currently the 500kg bombs are working far better than the 1000kg bomb which can hardly destroy a dugout.  Even the 50scs are doing better than the 1000kg bombs.  I also agree the map makers have been playing with the hit point numbers so a tgt isn't wiped out in a single pass.  Add the new DM the reduced effectiveness of the bombs overall and the fact Objective Objects are much tougher it makes things a bit frustrating.  Strafing has be reduced even for the bigger guns.  In fact a control tower can't even be taken out by 20mms.  Again IMO the devs need to do a bit of tweaking.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to enjoy flying bombers, but a 1 hour round trip or more just for one or two buildings destroyed hardly makes it seem worthwhile.   It does not give an adequate sense of reward or achievement for the amount of time invested. 
 

Edit: What the hell is wrong with you Luke??

Edited by Feathered_IV
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely understand non-wooden structures being very resistant to blast damage, but wood structures should be blown away or flattened by a large blast. Also, small vehicles like trucks, tractors, wagons, etc should be flipped over or something when a large bomb hits close and a flipped vehicle should count as destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 9:03 AM, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

Not being a bomber pilot, I feel that if the risk vs reward was adjusted for the bomber pilots perhaps there would be less negativity to the change?

You shouldn't need to clear an entire industrial block on your own to make the trip as valuable as dropping a single bomb on a ship as an example. I'm exaggerating, but perhaps a small adjustment might be in order eventually.

 

If the value of an airfield or industrial object was greater, and the requirement to (as we used to say on the WOL server) clear every single hidden crate of vodka from the map to clear an objective reduced then perhaps bomber players would see the change in a different light? I also understand the desire to wait for the dust to settle to ensure the developers don't significantly change this again before map makers spend many hours of their time re-adjusting missions.

 

 

I am in this camp, and not just because Trip and I are squad mates. Before the update, I remember returning to base after a sortie with many targets destroyed, after the update those numbers fell dramatically. While I do feel this is more realistic, the time and payload that is now needed to "destroy" a target area has grown, meaning I have to return to the target area on additional sorties with additional payload, which leads to additional risk. The number of targets destroyed/points gained does not bother me. If I'm getting lower numbers, everyone else is as well. I'm not saying I want super easy targets that get destroyed in one run, but (as in the WoL case) I would prefer to not have to return and loiter, locate, and destroy every last vodka case and toilet bowl hidden in the forest to achieve the desired result, especially if I drop a 500Kg within 25m of said toilet bowl and it still holds water. I'm sure this is due to missions being designed prior to the update that have the same amount of "health" for targets as before the update. This creates a conundrum for mission makers though. Do we ask them to adjust the mission dynamics (which I am certain is time consuming) without knowing whether a new update will bring change, or do we simply bite the bullet and "win or lose" maps with only one or two target areas destroyed?

 

On the other hand, this new dynamic has also changed aerial engagements. As targets got destroyed, it forced both attackers and defenders to concentrate on the remaining targets, making the end of missions quite frantic, with aircraft filling the skies over the last target or two. i.e "Air Quake/Berloga". Now things remain much more spread out, even in the later minutes of the missions. Some would could call this a positive, others a negative, depending on personal viewpoint. Personally I think it's a negative. While destroying ground targets unmolested by defending aircraft is easy, for me, it's just not fun. Just my $0.02.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Capt_Stubing said:

IMO with some anecdotal evidence the current DM and bomb damage is a bit off when it comes to the larger bombs.  Currently the 500kg bombs are working far better than the 1000kg bomb which can hardly destroy a dugout.  Even the 50scs are doing better than the 1000kg bombs.  I also agree the map makers have been playing with the hit point numbers so a tgt isn't wiped out in a single pass.  Add the new DM the reduced effectiveness of the bombs overall and the fact Objective Objects are much tougher it makes things a bit frustrating.  Strafing has be reduced even for the bigger guns.  In fact a control tower can't even be taken out by 20mms.  Again IMO the devs need to do a bit of tweaking.  

I had a test and the sc50s are definitely very effective. If it wasn't for the massive speed penalty the multiple sc 50 racks on the a8 would be brilliant with the new DM.

 

But a sc1000 should definitely be 'better' bomb for bomb

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have already said, it's become a matter of risk, reward and time investment.

 

The time and effort to fly an effective sortie as a fighter hasn't changed, but for a bomber, most of the payload options that gave a decent return on time spent flying a safe route to target have lost their use, requiring more and longer sorties per target with less satisfaction given, while the risk is - if anything - even greater than it was before. I like that the 50's now are more useful but on the flipside we're seeing even fewer people fly ground missions, and there weren't many of us to begin with. 

 

One can certainly argue that the new model is more realistic, and in most cases I'd fall in that camp, but it can still be an issue if it negatively impacts gameplay. Much like paying for dead snakes can lead to an increase in snake population (because farmers start breeding them for cash), there are situations where a more 'realistic' system can create less realistic scenarios in game, because of knock-on effects and player psychology. 

 

Unlike real life we don't have large fleets of bombers, we have brave individuals. We don't have a complex damage model for houses, we have vodka crates hidden in treelines - and we aren't ordered to fly bomber sorties, we get to choose. I'm not saying the current bomb damage is necessarily wrong, but I'm also not sure the effect it's having is desirable or in the best interest of our common flight experience. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with others that bigger bombs are somewhat problematic now. And it's not the blast damage effect itself, but as we cannot have those tanks flipping over and so on. Here is a nice interview of Finnish Ju-88 crew for example:

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-RautavaAijoEnglish.html

 

One quote pops up for example:

"Some planes had two 1000-kg's. It was a heavy load. A tonner would make a crater of 30-40 meters."

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 6:02 PM, JtD said:

With the exception of very large bombs (tall boy, grand slam and such) buildings mostly get destroyed by gas pressure, which is every effective when the bomb goes off inside the building and not as effective if the bomb explodes outside. Splinters and shock wave are only secondary effects in comparison, but are the ones remaining when the bomb goes off on the outside. For this reason, in real life you would typically take as many as small as possible (still useful) bombs for anti-building attacks and not a single as big as possible one. Against typical city housing, a 50kg bomb would already render a house inhabitable, 100+kg would effectively destroy it and 250+kg would annihilate it (like in the second picture). It also typical that the adjacent houses are structurally still intact, and I'd expect the next houses down the line to still be habitable.

 

The other option of course is fire.

 

 

 

This is what I've also learned while casually investigating the damage done to my home, Sofia, during the USAAF bombing campaign in 1943-44. While studying as university student in the adjacent National Library I noticed that a lot of the pre-1945 archives bore burn damage. An assistant professor told me that the original building was destroyed and the new (1939) one was damaged and the burning archives were saved by uni students. He also said that the university Rectorate itself was damaged. This:

 

DJI_0020-2-1200x674.jpg

 

A large (he wasn't sure if 500kg or 1000kg) bomb dropped just on the crossing in front of the main entrance, blasting the main entrance doors, the windows and damaging the façade. However, there was no structural damage to the building, which is typical XIXth century massive construction.

 

Following that, I spent a couple of summers walking around old downtown and "hunting" for damaged buildings trying to learn their stories. Lots of superficial damage, especially window frames, entrance doors, sculptures, etc. Yet, if there was no direct hit that would cause the pressure to build from the inside and burst the frame apart, or for the building to catch fire, the construction remained mostly intact.

 

Note that the B-17's and B-24's usually dropped a mix of high explosive and incendiary 500kg or larger bombs over Sofia, the smallest ones used were 250kgs from what I've researched - so these were large payloads, not tactical 50kg/100kg bombs. 

 

Sorry for the exposition, just sharing some personal observations.

Edited by Burdokva
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Luftschiff said:

As others have already said, it's become a matter of risk, reward and time investment.

 

The time and effort to fly an effective sortie as a fighter hasn't changed, but for a bomber, most of the payload options that gave a decent return on time spent flying a safe route to target have lost their use, requiring more and longer sorties per target with less satisfaction given, while the risk is - if anything - even greater than it was before. I like that the 50's now are more useful but on the flipside we're seeing even fewer people fly ground missions, and there weren't many of us to begin with. 

 

One can certainly argue that the new model is more realistic, and in most cases I'd fall in that camp, but it can still be an issue if it negatively impacts gameplay. Much like paying for dead snakes can lead to an increase in snake population (because farmers start breeding them for cash), there are situations where a more 'realistic' system can create less realistic scenarios in game, because of knock-on effects and player psychology. 

 

Unlike real life we don't have large fleets of bombers, we have brave individuals. We don't have a complex damage model for houses, we have vodka crates hidden in treelines - and we aren't ordered to fly bomber sorties, we get to choose. I'm not saying the current bomb damage is necessarily wrong, but I'm also not sure the effect it's having is desirable or in the best interest of our common flight experience. 


There is a bit of a feedback loop going on in MP at the moment. The bombs are less effective, people who used to run more ground attack sorties got frustrated and stopped running ground attack. This means there are less ground attackers and more fighters, since server numbers are basically the same pre and post patch from what I can see. So ground attack becomes even more deadly as there are more fighters waiting for you over the target. So fewer people run ground attack since it is so dangerous, resulting in more fighters, resulting in more dangerous ground attack...

The situation has gotten better as server admins have done a lot of work trying to tweak the durability values and targets. With some more adjustments to the DM as well, I think ground attack could become more viable again in terms of risk vs. reward.

As a plus side I have noticed that my own accuracy with rockets and bombs has gone up since the patch. It has forced me to pay more attention to wind, staying coordinated in the attack dive, and being more precise with my ordnance. It does take a lot of work to get better and I am only improving slowly. I think if people committed to flying a lot of ground attack and getting better it would go some way to improving things as well. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:


 It has forced me to pay more attention to wind, staying coordinated in the attack dive, and being more precise with my ordnance. It does take a lot of work to get better and I am only improving slowly. I think if people committed to flying a lot of ground attack and getting better it would go some way to improving things as well. 

This is actually why I have started to go from very rarely doing ground attack to actually enjoying the challenge and doing it most flights.

9 hours ago, Luftschiff said:

As others have already said, it's become a matter of risk, reward and time investment.

 

The time and effort to fly an effective sortie as a fighter hasn't changed, but for a bomber, most of the payload options that gave a decent return on time spent flying a safe route to target have lost their use, requiring more and longer sorties per target with less satisfaction given, while the risk is - if anything - even greater than it was before. I like that the 50's now are more useful but on the flipside we're seeing even fewer people fly ground missions, and there weren't many of us to begin with. 

 

One can certainly argue that the new model is more realistic, and in most cases I'd fall in that camp, but it can still be an issue if it negatively impacts gameplay. Much like paying for dead snakes can lead to an increase in snake population (because farmers start breeding them for cash), there are situations where a more 'realistic' system can create less realistic scenarios in game, because of knock-on effects and player psychology. 

 

Unlike real life we don't have large fleets of bombers, we have brave individuals. We don't have a complex damage model for houses, we have vodka crates hidden in treelines - and we aren't ordered to fly bomber sorties, we get to choose. I'm not saying the current bomb damage is necessarily wrong, but I'm also not sure the effect it's having is desirable or in the best interest of our common flight experience. 

But I think the point is that all these negative effects you cite are because map design hasn't taken into account the new DM for ground targets on MP servers.

A pinball table can give 100 points for a bumper or 1000000. It's arbitrary, just like the amount of vodka crates required to 'destroy' a target.

 

So it's not a DM problem, it's a server issue; then need to make a target that could be destroyed in 3 attacks before able to be destroyed in 3 attacks now.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go as far as saying the current Bomb Damage is breaking the sim. I don't know if it's the combination of the Map Makers making things tougher and the devs making things tougher or what but it is much much harder to bomb and kill things.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not ruining the game per see.

But it force you to redo all the experience you have done in 8 years. 
I started to test lighter bombs on JU 88 against artillery before the patch. 
Have not flown bombers since. 
But my initial guess is that it is no longer a advantage to pick the biggest bomb on all missions. With current early to mid war scenario the new bomb blast have equalized the two sides bombers. 
It is going to be interesting to check out what is best for what, something we should share in a topic in order to quicker 

get the data. I find it interesting not a drawback

But let me repeat , my experience on new blast damage is none existent. I just base it on numerous remarks on the matter. Frustration is a part of being a bomber pilot

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...