Author Topic: LCI & LST (Read 836 times)

Movie · « **on:** March 24, 2007, 03:10:39 PM »

LCT(landing craft infantry) needs to be added to the game because it can transport troops across water. Also the LST(landing craft tank) needs to be added because i cant get my tank across and destroy a field

Krusty · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2007, 03:22:32 PM »

The problem is those vehicles are boats. They are not amphibious. We have an amphbious LVT to get troops onto shore, because 99% of the time the town is not parked directly on the shoreline. You need to drive to the destination after you get feet dry.

Movie · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2007, 03:41:35 PM »

meant to say shouldnt those be added

john9001 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2007, 04:22:17 PM »

the LST(landing ship tank) might be good.

Ghosth · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:02:37 AM »

In an ideal world, yes.

The Task group should have a second part that includes fleet oilers, an escort carrier, troop ships, and a variety of landing craft including LST's.

Spikes · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:04:42 AM »

The terrain would have to be redone. You would have to gradually incline onto the shore.

frank3 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2007, 09:41:41 AM »

Well, a PT can land on the shore nicely as well

LST's would be a (historically) good addition

macleod01 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2007, 10:54:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghosth
In an ideal world, yes.

The Task group should have a second part that includes fleet oilers, an escort carrier, troop ships, and a variety of landing craft including LST's.

YES!
Totally in agreement!

I need more Stuka Fodder! A nice burning oil tanker! WOOT!
If destroyed, the bases fuel stays down for another 2 minutes per tanker destroyed

frank3 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:07:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by macleod01
If destroyed, the bases fuel stays down for another 2 minutes per tanker destroyed

I was more thinking of the base to be resupplied more slowly per oil tanker destroyed

macleod01 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:32:28 AM »

I was meaning say 5 tankers are in a convoy, all 5 are sunk, the base is down for a further 10 minutes. If 20 tankers (unlikely) They are all destroyed, its down for a further 40 minutes!

frank3 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:49:13 AM »

Oh, well I meant a resupply role, and not determine the actual fuel-quantity on the field itself.
So, let's say a downed fueltank will be down, let's say, 10 minutes extra for each tanker destroyed?

macleod01 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:50:58 AM »

yea! And if an ammo ship got hit,
a. their be a heck of big bang!
B. Ord is down for an extra two minutes for each ammo ship sunk

Movie · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2007, 01:47:13 PM »

this could be handy:

macleod01 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2007, 02:03:58 PM »

Would really flesh out the entire infrastructure thing. The ability to siege an enemy base by destroying her shipping! Make it a lot better for the BoB scenarios as well.
A. Give the Stuka something proper to hit
B. It can have the same priorities in Frame 1 as in RL, protect the shipping! If a base is bombed, then The ships attacked, that base could be down for a looong time!

macleod01 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2007, 02:15:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Movie
this could be handy:

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuukaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa