Pyro posted news....Seaplanes and changes to ordnance in 1.05

[Hans]

This is repasted from the other forums.  Pyro made some clarifications in two threads in there.

First is reguarding the mention of seaplane tender ships in the last news forum post he made...

 

Seaplane tenders aren't planned for this next version as we don't have any seaplanes currently in the works. In addition to the things we're doing for 1.05 such as a task force and PT boats, we're trying to lay the groundwork for some hows and whys of future additions to the naval side, one of which being seaplanes.

And the good one about changes to ordnances in 1.05...

 

We've got some work to do on ordnance in 1.05. Here's the stuff we have slated and you can let us know if there's something we've forgotten or something else you'd like to see.

Ordnance damage- The relationship between heavy ordnance like bombs, rockets, and large-bore cannons is disproportionate to that of the smaller MG and cannons. This is most prevalent in the Ostwind's ability to level fields. So the change will be an increase in the damage of the heavy weapon classes while the smaller weapon classes will remain the same.

Bomb shapes- sizes needed to be adjusted for the different sizes of bombs and we may add some new bomb shapes as well.

N1K2-J ammo load- Increased ammo for one of the pairs of cannon.

21cm rockets on 109 and 190- will get a timed fuze. <edit this means they blow up like flak rounds instead of dropping to earth if they don't hit anything....close counts now>

External fuel tanks on Typhoon.

Disable bomb drops on ground.

We also made a change to bullet dispersion to make them weighted towards the center of the cone of fire.

And some clarification about the bomb damage changes....

 

I meant to mention that object hardness would go up in proportion to the increase in heavy ordnance damage. Basically, it means that taking out buildings and stuff will require more fire from lighter weapons but will remain the same with heavier weapons. Right now, light weapons in the game would be defined as 37mm and and under.

The 21cm rockets do have a blast area but they need to detonate in order for that to take place. That's the purpose behind the time fuze.

This change doesn't effect other rocket types.

Hans.

[iculus]

Thanks Hans,

Looking forward to these changes

<S> IC

[Glasses]

I see they don't mention fixing the uncanny ability for ,ahem,other planes ro resist E bleed...

------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.

[This message has been edited by Glasses (edited 11-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Glasses (edited 11-18-2000).]

[TheWobble]

Fix the lack of bomb drift problem!, is is ruining the game for fighters and buff pilots alike.

FOR FIGHTERS: bombers can hit a GE from 35k with 1 bomb easy, they can aim every bomb they drop.  disable a field in 10-20 min

FOR BOMBERS: WE CANT CARPET BOMB! the bombs line up in a straight line so if we salvo they dont do much damage, just a perfectly straight line across the field, there fore we HAVE to aim every bomb or its a total waste.  We would MUCH rather just dump a load of bombs over the target and know that they are gonna land randomly in its basic vicinity, sometime ya kill alot, others not much.  i LOVE THIS GAME but the lack of anything resembeling bomb drift is killing it for me....and alot of hangars too  

You guys are hammering out such tiny detailes but are TOTALLY ignoring this obvious problem, i mean there are ALWAYS threads about people griping about bombers being to accurate.  Even the bomber pilots dont like it.  you drop from 5k or 35k they land exactly the same.

[AKcurly]

TheWobble Sez:
-------------------------------------
You guys are hammering out such tiny detailes but are TOTALLY ignoring this obvious problem, i mean there are ALWAYS threads about people griping about bombers being to accurate. Even the bomber pilots dont like it. you drop from 5k or 35k they land exactly the same.
--------------------------------------

For better or worse, Aces High is about field capture.  Right now, it takes 3 1k bombs (direct hit) to knock down a hangar.

If you introduce bomb drift, it will be very difficult to assemble enough bombers to knock down hangars.

If we don't knock down hangars, there will be no field capture.

If your objection (bomb drift) is based on a desire for your bomber to behave realistically.  However, the point of bombing enemy hangars (in the war) was not field capture -- it was resource destruction.

Maybe your carpet bombing idea would be realistic if HTC did away with the hangars and placed a certain number of aircraft at each field.  The aircraft could be clearly visible and subject to attack.

If you placed 5 a/c of each type at a field and all of the La5s were destroyed, then no one could fly a La5 from that field!  If you destroyed all aircraft, then yep, field capture could occur.

Now that I think about this, the more that I like it.  There are certain planes I rarely fly.  However, if they were the only plane available at a field (the others had been destroyed), yeah, I would be forced to fly whatever was available and I like that idea

It seems to me that a/c would be more susceptible to blast damage than hardened hangars.

So, ok, here ya go.  1) Place all a/c directly on the field and make them targets;
2) Keep the hangars, but make them more susceptible to damage; 3) Destroy a/c on the field and the a/c won't be available to fly; 4) Destroy the hangars and the a/c won't be available for an even longer period of time.
5) Increase the lethality of field ack to make the ack less susceptible to attack by a/c. 6) Now, it makes sense to introduce bomb drift.

Aces High is a hoot.  It's the richest gaming environment I've seen.  They don't have to change the game model to keep my attention.    However, I believe the above suggestions would improve the game model.

[Rendar]

How about we get a checkable option for bomb drift?  It could be disabled in the MA, but enabled fir scenarios invilving city bombing.  It should also be an option offline.

------------------
Rendar

[SKurj]

Heya Curly

Only downside to your proposal...  Thats a lot of different plane types, and total AC models on the field.  Would likely be a HUUUGE frame hit..

SKurj

[Zigrat]

i would seriously enjoy being able to limit the type of plane able to take off from fields or a whole contry

what if there was a messerschmit target, a north-american target, a yakolev target etcera.

it would be fun to keep their Chance-Vought plant in constant ruin! hehe

[hazed-]

i like the bomb spread pattern idea for salvo's sounds good to me but we do have .delay which can spread craters but a wide spread would be cool if only for looks.
I think aim should be mildly inaccurate and we could increase blast radius?
then a salvo would be a prefered option.
buffs are still not as dangerous as a single ostwind!    


hazed

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 11-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 11-18-2000).]

[TheWobble]

The idea for aircraft suseptability is BRILLIANT, but alat framerates for planes taking off fromthios fields would be HORRIBLE.  All I ( and alot of buff drivers) want ist the ability to drop all of our bombs at once withoug knowing EXACTLY where they will hit (in perfectly spaced staright line)  If we DONT aim EVERY bomb we will for sure NOT get hits with them, however if the bombs fell in a more random and dispersed fasion we wouldent have to worry about it.  The way it is now is that If the sight is not EXACTLY over a target we know for sure it wont be a hit.  and that forces us to make several passes and also make it to where we purposaly aim every bomb to hist with maximum effictevness, the onlyn other option is to utterly waste them.

[Fury]

I wonder why Pyro posted it in the other bbs instead of this bbs?   lol

I guess now I just have to read multiple threads to get all the information  

Fury

[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-19-2000).]

[pokie]

Maybe your carpet bombing idea would be realistic if HTC did away with the hangars and placed a certain number of aircraft at each field. The aircraft could be clearly visible and subject to attack.

If you placed 5 a/c of each type at a field and all of the La5s were destroyed, then no one could fly a La5 from that field! If you destroyed all aircraft, then yep, field capture could occur.

Now that I think about this, the more that I like it. There are certain planes I rarely fly. However, if they were the only plane available at a field (the others had been destroyed), yeah, I would be forced to fly whatever was available and I like that idea

It seems to me that a/c would be more susceptible to blast damage than hardened hangars.

So, ok, here ya go. 1) Place all a/c directly on the field and make them targets;
2) Keep the hangars, but make them more susceptible to damage; 3) Destroy a/c on the field and the a/c won't be available to fly; 4) Destroy the hangars and the a/c won't be available for an even longer period of time.
5) Increase the lethality of field ack to make the ack less susceptible to attack by a/c. 6) Now, it makes sense to introduce bomb drift.

AKcurly

//////////////////

Hey AKcurly I like your idea, now for the frame rate that SKurj mentions "Only downside to your proposal... Thats a lot of different plane types, and total AC models on the field. Would likely be a HUUUGE frame hit.."

How about placing one plane to represent planes from a country.  Like you have ger, italy, jap, brit, usa, ussr planes, suppose you place 1 plane that represents that country and if it gets damaged then you can't fly any planes from that group.  Six planes on the runway and the USA plane gets damaged then no USA planes (maybe including bombers) can be flown.

Or you could have planes on the runway that represents class of planes.

That should keep the frame rate down.

One other thought.  If it takes 3 1k bombs (direct hit) to knock down a hangar.  Then have damage control on the hanger.
1 direct hit lose x% of planes
2 direct hits lose x% of planes
3 direct hits hanger destroyed

Then put in bomb hits that were close to the hanger lose x% of planes. These losses would be less than the direct hits but could add up.

Pokie

[SKurj]

Like to see more strategic targets, however map would need to be larger.  Aircraft factories, so ya could stem the chog tide (not that i really care about the chog in particular)

SKurj

[easymo]

 Is it just bullet dispersion, or cannon also?

[LJK_Reschke]

 

Originally posted by TheWobble:
Fix the lack of bomb drift problem!, is is ruining the game for fighters and buff pilots alike.

FOR FIGHTERS: bombers can hit a GE from 35k with 1 bomb easy, they can aim every bomb they drop.  disable a field in 10-20 min

FOR BOMBERS: WE CANT CARPET BOMB! the bombs line up in a straight line so if we salvo they dont do much damage, just a perfectly straight line across the field, there fore we HAVE to aim every bomb or its a total waste.  We would MUCH rather just dump a load of bombs over the target and know that they are gonna land randomly in its basic vicinity, sometime ya kill alot, others not much.  i LOVE THIS GAME but the lack of anything resembeling bomb drift is killing it for me....and alot of hangars too    

You guys are hammering out such tiny detailes but are TOTALLY ignoring this obvious problem, i mean there are ALWAYS threads about people griping about bombers being to accurate.  Even the bomber pilots dont like it.  you drop from 5k or 35k they land exactly the same.

This is the same problem that is occuring in that other game Fighter Ace 2.  Many of us that fly in both games (myself included) have a problem with bombs not being effected by drift from aircraft speed, high altitude winds, air density and other things.  In there you can PINPOINT bomb anything you want to on the map just like you can in here.  A drift of some sort would be great.  Also I like the idea presented about various aircraft types at each field and the one including a group of factories for your planes and tanks but add one more for ship building facilities for the upcoming ships and we are dead on.

------------------
Maj. Reschke
Kommandeur Jagdbomber,
StaffelKapitaen I-31 LJK www.luftjagerkorps.com

[This message has been edited by LJK_Reschke (edited 11-19-2000).]