Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking

[LePaul]

I seldom see fields being taken with the FHs down.

The order of battle seems to be kill VH, disable radar, de-ack, establish air superiority, work the town down and prevent cons frmo upping while troops are brought in

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by LePaul
I seldom see fields being taken with the FHs down.

The order of battle seems to be kill VH, disable radar, de-ack, establish air superiority, work the town down and prevent cons frmo upping while troops are brought in

The attacks I'm seeing of late are going kinda like:
[list=1]

• First wave of Jabo horde ... kills barracks and ord ... tries to get VH (misses half the time)
• Vultching commenses
• Vultchers start dying as defenders start to gather
• 2nd wave of Jabos starts to roll in, trying to kill FH this time ... sometimes they wise up and kill VH, though
• As this wave starts to die, they realize that some of the field guns have tracers off and start to de-ack the field
• The first wave of low-alt heavy bombers starts to appear - missing the FH badly
• Several more waves of bombers and Jabos stagger into the field until finally the FH are down and they have a dozen planes over the field
• Attackers now realize: "The town! We have to kill the town!"
• CAP starts to decay as they head to kill town and IL2's start to lift ... VH comes back up around now
• A semi-chaotic condition ensues where attackers must decide if they want to kill the town and protect the C47's, or vultch the field - most choose the latter, C47's die, town still mostly up
• Spurious porkers bust through the furball ahead of the field - ignoring the fight completely - for their chance to blow up a toolshed and make a couple passes on the runway
• The FH are back up by now and there's a flury of bombing attempts (and augers) to take them back down
• Heavy bombers now start coming back in killing town and FH and VH ... eventually ... Jabo fighters seem to be more interested in bombing GV's than the VH ... there's still a manned ack up with tracers off killing vultchers
• This process continues until either the defenders just get worn down by the odds or get reinforcements - only in the former case does the field get captured
[/list=1]

It is indeed an awesome display of teamwork.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Hardening ammo bunkers is complete bull imho.

Reason porking can happen is because of the hoarding. The hoard is in one place leaving all other bases open to jabo runs. The only incentive not to hoard atm is that the singel jabo runner might provide for a target in a non hoarded environment.

So hardening ammo bunkers will mean even more hoarding.

Further given how soft our CVs are hardened ammo bunkers would mean no CVs out at sea.

Tex

Wow!

Someone that actually "gets it"

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
Having sandbagged and designed real life ammo bunkers in the army, it would take more than a n00b strafing with 20m or 50cal to take out the ammo bunker.  Couple of reasons:

a) We dug it in.  If we had time, a tractor with a backhoe or a front-end grader would dig out a 4-6 foot deep trench.
b) We sand-bagged the hell out of it - inside and out.  We would sandbag primarily the top with re-enforced bars and poles - perhaps 5-8 sandbags high and then around 6 deep on the sides.
c) It was designed to collapse upon itself if the ceiling was hit.  Sandbags would then fall on top of all the boxes of rounds and other ammunition to ensure no fire would set off other rounds.
d) Ammo was placed around the sides and under the ground level.

What would you  need to take it out?  Lots of Napalm, or several well-placed shells from a tank through the front door.

Airfields that I worked at had established ammo bunkers were re-enforced concrete structures with 10-20ft of rebared concrete.  You would need a bunker-buster bomb to take it out, or a really really big bomb (Stuka?) or again, Napalm through the front door and down the stairs.  There would be an elevator to lift up the ordinance - but that would be down the hall.  Again, if it's an established bunker, hard to take out even in modern standards but not impossible.  BTW - these were bunkers built in the 40's.

Could you strafe it?  About as effective as peeing into the wind.

I would guess that two well placed 1000lb bombs would be enough to render/destroy the bunker.  If you then dropped incindinary on the hit bunker, you should be able to watch the fire cook off the ammo inside.  Now, that would be cool.

And you did this during WWII?

Like I said. We're talking 1939-1945

NOT 1990+
Or even 1960+

[DREDIOCK]

Its amazing how people only want "historical accuracy"  with the things that suit them and dont want it for the things that dont
 I have seen people critical over the placement of, and how many rivets were on a panel on a skin.

And people complain that explosive material blows up too easily
(insert old eyroll emoticon here)

Particulalry at front line bases  where it would be even LESS likely the ammo would have bee in hardened bunkers (again insert old eyroll emoticon here)

Guess taking off from a different base is COMPLETELY out of the question huh?

What you really need is some of this
Here kiddies

[Kurt]

Well, if HiTech hasn't posted here yet, that means it ain't gonna change...

So with that in mind..

I'll just insert a generic AOL style 'Me Too' to which ever side is right.

[mars01]

I seldom see fields being taken with the FHs down.

The order of battle seems to be kill VH, disable radar, de-ack, establish air superiority, work the town down and prevent cons frmo upping while troops are brought in

Yep 9 out of 10 times you will get the base this way.  Unfortunately the only guys I see do this are the Vets from AHI.

The rest all go the way Dok precisely put it.  When I see the FHrs go down I know the maroons have arrived.

[TexMurphy]

How about this to increase incentive to defend and to try to retake a lost base.

After nation X takes a field it takes say 60 min for that base to become operational. Meaning you can only refuel and rearm at that pad for that time.

This would mean that you actually have to hold it for 60 min before its of any use to the nation.

It would be faster to retake a base then it would be to take a new one.

Im just thinkin out loud here trying to find new ways.

Tex

[lazs2]

Ok... let's see if we get this...

Griefing is really strat so long as it is other players game being ruined... If they don't like it then tough... they don't have to pay the griefers fifteen bucks bill a month...

A griefer strat girl who's ord is porked is quite antother thing... he is being unfairly treated in the game... ONE person can ruin the game for him and his bridge club of fellow fluffers and make it impossible for them to have an easy shed orgy..  this is somehow unfair.

The toolshed greifers will squeal like rock stars in prison if their ord is porked by a single player but when they are able to do the same to someone else they say..... "if it bothers you then fly cap and defend your FH or CV"  

When told to do the same they simply cry...  

The real point being... If you can ruin the fight and fun for more than one person at a time then the game you play is probly the game of an attention starved, tallentless greifer and you probly deserve to be treated in kind.

As for fuel...  It should never have been a percent in any case.  It should have been gallons.   Use the fuel load of a 51 say...  or whatever... allow everyone to take the same gallons.   50% of a fuel load for a P47 say would over fill a 109.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by lazs2
...

As for fuel...  It should never have been a percent in any case.  It should have been gallons.   Use the fuel load of a 51 say...  or whatever... allow everyone to take the same gallons.   50% of a fuel load for a P47 say would over fill a 109.

...

In general I like the idea ... except it means that the planes which already abound in the MA (Spit16 and La7) are more or less immune to fuel damage at bases. So on that basis I think what we have now works well.

[Mak333]

Maybe HTC has a reason for the extensive down time for fuel and ammo bunkers... Maybe HTC is trying to get across the point that this game is not just about flying your fighter into more fighters and then go land.  Maybe they are trying to say:  hey, you need to defend your resources or you will be screwed for a while...

It is very rare that I see people run C47's to re-supply a base that was just hit.  I know some of you out there are dedicated to boring jobs of that sort and I respect that, because there aren't enough people that help out the "country" in other ways besides fighting.  

If your base was hit - It was your fault for not defending it.

Up from another base - It will only take an extra 5 mins.

Resupply your bases - Someone has to do it if you want your resources back.  Think of other ways to help your country out besides strictly furballing and fighter sweeps with groups or squads.

[Mister Fork]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And you did this during WWII?

Like I said. We're talking 1939-1945

NOT 1990+
Or even 1960+

Did you miss the quote that the bunkers I saw at the airfields I worked at were built in the early 40's?

I don't think that field bunker building (mobile) has changed a whole lot in 100 years for us army grunts and engineers.  

[lazs2]

gonzo... but... we are in effect playing the spit/lw game here... we are playing the short range fighter plane game that the short sighted euros played in the war..

A plane that is light and short ranged should be king of a short ranged battle compared to a heavy long range plane.  

My point is that fuel should not be a factor in this game and that is pretty much how it shook out in WWII.   The planes with long range really have no advantage here.   For them to have an advantage you have to do a silly and gamey "limit fuel" thing.

Course... no planes took of with "50%" because fuel was limited... they may have not taken off at all if there was no fuel...or taken off with less just to get up quickly or.... like some corsairs at close bases...taken off with less because they simply needed less but ..... no one said....ok.... you are all gonna get only25% in your tanks today cause fuel has been wiped out...  nope... maybe only one in four got up if that were the case but they got all the fuel they needed.  

lazs

[Sketch]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
Did you miss the quote that the bunkers I saw at the airfields I worked at were built in the early 40's?

I don't think that field bunker building (mobile) has changed a whole lot in 100 years for us army grunts and engineers.  

Igloos over here at Aviano are still like that.  We have 44 buildings with 15-18 of them range from being built in the late 30's-40's....  I should know, I work with bombs every day... very good point made on your part!

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by lazs2
gonzo... but... we are in effect playing the spit/lw game here... we are playing the short range fighter plane game that the short sighted euros played in the war..

A plane that is light and short ranged should be king of a short ranged battle compared to a heavy long range plane.  

...

I'm not disagreeing on the basis of realism, but rather on the way the MA works.

Basically what'd happen is you'd just shift who's getting griefed. Right now the Spit/190/La/Yak/etc. crowd gets hurt by "50% fuel". With your way, its the P51/P47/F4U/etc. crowd that gets hurt by "only 150 gals fuel" (or whatever the number comes out to be).

And as long as that's the case - especially since it's the US birds which can carry the most Jabo ord - porking will remain rampant and unabated.