From: LI, NY
Look, here's how I see it... The game/code (whatever) has limits/restrictions on what is reasonably possible and what is not. I doubt that there's an algorithm for each type of possible attack. i.e. Airfield, ground, city, navel, etc. So the code is designed to do what needs to happen within the limits of the game. What's that? City bombing. This was probably the most important aspect of history that needs to be reflected in the software. At least IRT the game. So the design is to focus on that, and get the rest to work reasonable well. This is my take on what Nicodemus was saying. JMHO YMMV
Now that said, I've no input to the code these are just my views and opinions. I have to say though that some things accomplished by the use of 4E bombers seem to be, shall I say 'over the top'. So if I or anyone else wishes to have some kind of HR to limit these things, why on earth should anyone else care? As long as players agree that is that. I'd also like to add that I would never ask another player for an HR that I would not accept if I were playing his/her side.
TBH in one of my games as Japan I decided to try city bombing myself, just to see a bit of what happens. If you ask me its way too easy to destroy a city. All I did was on occasion night bomb Calcutta with whatever occasional bomber group I had left doing nothing. No more than 25-30 aircraft every second or third night. Well within a rather shot period I had about one third of Calcutta reduced to ashes. I thought that it was pretty easy, but in game terms I thought it worked. As this is what happened to Japan, and in the end what needs to be accomplished in the long run. At least within the scope of the game.
There you have my thoughts and views. If it means I'm not your PBEM opponent, so be it.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb