Author Topic: Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking  (Read 5037 times)

Offline SuperDud

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4589
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2006, 07:44:34 PM »
It's good to see the bomber boyz are getting a taste of the frustration us furballers put up with every time we log in. I've just done what's been suggested and take down ord along the front as often as possible. It prevents all the toolshed heros/horders from stopping a fun fight. It's fun to grief the grievers, then hear them squeal. Welcome to what those of us who like to fight airplanes have been dealing with for years. I can see I've been doing a good job!:aok
SuperDud
++Blue Knights++

Offline Edbert

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
      • http://www.edbert.net
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2006, 08:05:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Darkish
Anyhoo, point i'm going to make is that there is absolutely no defense against porkers.  Everything else in this game has a counter except a 550mph typhie/la7/pony hellbent on shooting sheds. You can't kill them in time. By the time you have vis and have closed (this is with a cap intercept mission) they're on the field.
 

That is pretty much true for buffers too. Only way to stop them is to have a high and permanent bar-cap. Not exactly feasible, so your point stands, there's no way to effectivly stop a single player from ruining the ability of a great number of folks not being able to sortie as they wish.

Here's the other side though, HAVING the ability to disrupt the other "team" is to deny them the ability to sortie as they see fit. For one field it is not a big deal, some of these maps have well over 100 bases, but along an entire front takes coordination and planning. So the point to try and decide is how many dedicated jabos or bomber-boxes SHOULD it take to deny a large group of folks the ability to sortie?

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2006, 08:49:10 PM »
Just a side on a fun read ;)

Anyone have or know of a site that would have some info on the PB-1 or -2 rocket (not sure which one we have on the 190f8)?

Here is an interesting thought....what about MG/cannon ammo linked also to ord?  Maybe if all ord is down you can only up 25% ammo...just an idea....it would give the furballers something to defend also....just a thought :)

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2006, 08:56:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Lemme get this straight LP.

You're crying a river that it's too easy to rampantly pork the ord and in the same post calling for the return of rampantly porking the fuel?

:rofl



Whose crying a river?  

I'm pointing out that an AMMO BUNKER can be downed for hours by an enemy by *merely* strafing it.

A SOFT target like, say, a FUEL DUMP can be downed in a similar function.  BUT...in the game, its currently HARD CODED to never go below 75%

So why can a Fuel resource stay up but an AMMO BUNKER has the ruggedness of a tissue box?

Quote


2. As I've heard SO many time and as Laz has so perfectly pointed out

Defend the ammo bunkers boys... that's what you tell us ad nauseam.

I do thank you for the post, however. I had no idea it would be that easy to stymie the lemming hordes. All I have to do is up a late war cannon bird and go a-porking? Kewl. Might renew some of my interest in the game if a few of us can essentially stop the lemming hordes by porking ammo.

A MA with 500 people and no ord.... think of the possibilities! ;) [/B]


Toad, I'm simply pointing out the inequality in the strat system in the game.  

People like Laz simply furball and that's all well and good.  The system, in its current design, is optimized for that.

How can one defend an ammo bunker from a diving/strafe/auger attack?  Its considerably different if its a set of Lancs trying to dive into your fhs

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2006, 09:04:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 101ABN
I agree with LePaul... the ammo bunkers need a little more strength.. lets think about this for a second..... they are ammo "bunkers", not ammo sheds... i shouldnt be able to pop a few 20mm into it and kill it.. can you really knock out a bunker with a few rounds?  i think that it should require atleast a 250lb bomb "down the air shaft" to damage it..



On the other hand since everyone is so into reality From flight dynamics to gun velocity to how many rivets are on the skin of a plane.

We are talking 1939-1945

NOT 1990

Ammo was rarely kept in bunkers but at ammo dumps where something as littel as a hand grenade would be enough to set the whole place off.

I remember reading one account several years ago about a german plane that came in and strafed one of our ammo dumps and managed to set it off and it was going off for not hours but days.

Typically the fronts were moving too fast for the construction and use of ammo "bunkers" Hence there were very few of them and they were rarely used.

If anything the ammo is hardened well past its RL counterpart

Its fine the way it is.
Leave it alone. and Defend the feild better. Or Do a turnabout is fair play and do the same to them.
Orrrrrr do what they did IRL and take off from farther back with your bombers and fly to an alt of 10+ K
OTD  heavy Bomber runs were only slightly less rare then ammo bunkers
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2006, 09:05:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LePaul
Whose crying a river?  

I'm pointing out that an AMMO BUNKER can be downed for hours by an enemy by *merely* strafing it.

A SOFT target like, say, a FUEL DUMP can be downed in a similar function.  BUT...in the game, its currently HARD CODED to never go below 75%

So why can a Fuel resource stay up but an AMMO BUNKER has the ruggedness of a tissue box?

 

Toad, I'm simply pointing out the inequality in the strat system in the game.  

People like Laz simply furball and that's all well and good.  The system, in its current design, is optimized for that.

How can one defend an ammo bunker from a diving/strafe/auger attack?  Its considerably different if its a set of Lancs trying to dive into your fhs


By killing them at or near their own base ;)
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2006, 09:09:58 PM »
Well, LP, there's inequality and there's inequality.

25% fuel in a 109E is not the same as 25% fuel in a P-51 in terms of flying time.

On the big maps..the stupid ones with the airfields more than 3/4 of a sector apart.... 25% fuel ELIMINATES a lot of the early and mid-war birds with small fuel tanks as viable options. You're pretty much out of gas when you get to the fight.

OTOH, the later war aircraft with big tanks can still sortie, do a little fighting and have enough gas to return to base.

Is that equality? Sure isn't if you're an early/mid war afficianado.

The fuel porking rendered useless a significant portion of the planeset. THAT'S why it was changed.

And speaking of "equality", how is it that every airbase has a vehicle hangar but every vehicle base has only a ...vehicle hangar. Equality? This game has nought to do with equality.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7305
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2006, 10:24:32 PM »
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. :D

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. :D
« Last Edit: June 07, 2006, 10:31:34 PM by Mister Fork »
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline wojo71

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2006, 10:43:27 PM »
I agree ord should be tougher and I think fuel down to 25% should be put back however the answer to both these is DEFEND YOUR BASES:D
LTARwojo        
Proud father of a U.S. Marine....Proud grandson of Lt Col Hamel Goodin (ret)   B-17 pilot. 305th BG /364th SQD

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2006, 12:29:06 AM »
Question for Fork: were bunkers in the 40s built in the same fashion with the same materials?

For the rest of the group: what if HTC were to put in some sort of game mechanic, say a resupply like we currently have for GVs? Such a change would allow you to bring ord and troops back up at a porked field, without having to wait for 2 hours. I would think this would negate this "problem" completely, and would be easy to add.
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline CHECKERS

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1187
      • http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/1502/index.html
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2006, 01:08:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by LePaul
Thanks for contributing....nothing...to the discussion.  Had you *read* any of the previous posts, you guys would've seen we *have* been discussing ideas to fix it.

But, I suppose its easier to post a few zingers and look like a moron.



 Naw, ........
 LP, It's eayser to go along with your post ..........
   Than thinking......
« Last Edit: June 08, 2006, 01:11:21 AM by CHECKERS »
Originally posted by Panman
God the BK's are some some ugly mo-fo's. Please no more pictures, I'm going blind Bet your mothers don't even love ya cause u'all sooooooooo F******* ulgy.

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2006, 01:42:24 AM »
Make every building invulnerable for anything below 23/30mm, including town buildings, excepting acks. Leave everything else as is.
It will possible to kill all ords & troops alone with bomb & rocks or with IL-2/110G, but will require a bit more effort and make easier to intercept attackers.

As for protection ammo bunkers in RL, i dont know as good it was. But at least i sure they didnt stored it in open space with big red marker on top of heap "AMMO STORE - SHOOT HERE".
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #72 on: June 08, 2006, 02:08:49 AM »
The "defend your bases" argument for dealing with porkers just doesn't fly. Never has. Never will. They're griefers.

Offline TexMurphy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #73 on: June 08, 2006, 02:29:40 AM »
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

Offline Warspawn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 647
Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking
« Reply #74 on: June 08, 2006, 03:54:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by zorstorer
Just a side on a fun read ;)

Anyone have or know of a site that would have some info on the PB-1 or -2 rocket (not sure which one we have on the 190f8)?



Unfortunately, we have the PB-1:

One of those was the Panzerblitz 1 rocket. Developed by Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik, the Panzerblitz (Pb1) was a more successful missile than the Panzerschreck 1 that preceded it. The rocket consisted of an 80mm mortar grenade (Gerat M8 -Device M8) mated with the R4M air-to-air missile. In 1 Sept 1944, four Pb1 launch rails were installed under the wing of Fw-190F-8 Werke Number 733705 for trails. Tests showed the rockets could be launched from about twice the distance from the target (about 200 yards) as the Panzerschreck but with a maximum target approach speed of 305 mph, the aircraft was vulnerable to ground fire.

The number of rockets fitted beneath each wing rose to six and finally standardized on eight very late in the war. Not surprisingly, the smaller warhead penetrated only 90mm of steel. At first, the rockets were fired in two salvos, but later launched in pairs.


The type was replaced by Panzerblitz 2, a modified R4M with a Panzerschreck warhead, capable of penetrating 180mm of armor, but that is another story.  Now that would be a nice rocket to have!





Rockets Link
Purple haze all in my brain
Lately things just don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why

'Scuse me while I kiss the sky                 
                                                 --J. Hendrix