.5 inch ammo versus Ack

[Slobberdonkey]

The one thing I miss more than anything else from AH1 is the ability to drop field acks with just a short burst from a .50 caliber gun.  Now it's 1 round from a 20mm somewhere near the emplacement versus a long precise strafing run with 6-8 .50 cals to drop a gun emplacement.

It's criminal that the P47 is a less appealing option for deacking than a 109-G2 (without gondolas).

Please change the damage modeling of .5 caliber rounds versus field acks to a higher level of effectiveness.  AH1 may have been overkill with just 1 bullet landing somewhere in the circle dropping the emplacements but it shouldn't be too far from that.

[Ack-Ack]

You can still take out field gun emplacements with .50 cals, heck you can even take them out with the rifle caliber guns the Ju-87D-3 has.  

The only thing that is preventing you from killing the field acks is your aim, nothing else.  Honestly, 1 burst of .50s will kill a field gun emplacement if you actually hit it instead of around it like you seem to be doing.


ack-ack

[Lye-El]

Also while you are changing things, change it so aircraft are easier to hit, and more ack guns are available. It's just not fair that a quick squirt from one of twenty aircraft vulching can take out a fields air defense.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You can still take out field gun emplacements with .50 cals, heck you can even take them out with the rifle caliber guns the Ju-87D-3 has.  

The only thing that is preventing you from killing the field acks is your aim, nothing else.  Honestly, 1 burst of .50s will kill a field gun emplacement if you actually hit it instead of around it like you seem to be doing.


ack-ack

    Just for discussion, wouldn't the actual "destruction" of the
gun position be much more likely to simulate the destruction or
suppressing of the crew than the gun itself?

    That being said, I find it difficult to believe that crews would
ignore hundreds of machine gun bullets impacting in their
immediate area just because they weren't exploding
In fact, I bet it would be very difficult to tell the difference during
the span of the strafing run.

[Kweassa]

What's so difficult to believe? We already have planes ignoring all kinds of dangers and buffs flying at 2k alt.

 Heck, if we're talking about realism, the ground pounders should drop load on target, and rtb anyway, instead of hang around field, knock ground defenses one by one, and then vulch it to hell.

 I mean, what kind of field totes slow firing , 60rpm AA guns anyway? Besides, wouldn't there be always defense personnel who'd take up positions of dead AA gunners and start firing again? Or, set up new guns at different positions as the field is raided?

 ...


 Isn't deacking fields easy enough already?

[Rino]

You are discussing pilot behavior, I'm talking about AI for
the most part.  I dare you to model common sense in the
average online gamer

[Siaf__csf]

Besides, wouldn't there be always defense personnel who'd take up positions of dead AA gunners and start firing again? Or, set up new guns at different positions as the field is raided?

Which field during WW2 had an unlimited supply of M16 and ostwind anti-aircraft vehicles?

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Which field during WW2 had an unlimited supply of M16 and ostwind anti-aircraft vehicles?

On the same field? None I would imagine. The German and Allies didn't defend the same field at the same time.

Or maybe it was the same one where major airfields are defended with 3 guns.

 I wonder what the hit percentage is with the 37mm ack gun?