Author Topic: ammo bunkers = bomb available (Read 607 times)

whels · « **on:** February 20, 2008, 03:56:52 PM »

how about changing ammo bunkers to simular availability like fueld bunkers do now for fuel.

IE:

ammo 100% up: all bombs available
75%: only 1k/500kg or smaller
50%: only 500lber/250kg or smaller
25%: only 250lber/100kg or smaller

you can still shut down hvy bomber/jabo fighter ops with bigger bombs, but
still leave the smaller bombs available for field defence vs GVs.

could also have it affect what gun ammo available for fighters.
100%: all ammo
75%:no ammo bigger then 30mm
50%: no ammo bigger then 20mm
25%: 30/50 cal full avail, half ammo load 20mms

Spikes · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2008, 04:13:04 PM »

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2008, 04:18:34 PM »

There are somethings that AW did right and one of them was how field damage was done. Like the example Whels gave with the ammo, if the ammo was completely destroyed at the field, cannons weren't available. If fuel was damaged, it degraded the quality of the fuel and it had an effect on your plane, the engine would run sluggish. If you damaged maintenance (something I wish we had in AH), it would effect the planes too, you may get an airplane with smoking engines or leaking fuel or damaged hydraulics.

Probably why some of the best fights in AW were for bases, I guess when there is something on the line, people tend to fight with more gusto. Zone limits helped too.

ack-ack

hitech · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2008, 04:37:04 PM »

We disagree Ack-Ack, fuel porking disabled the field in reality AW. 10% less power or what ever it was, pretty much stopped people from flying from those fields.

AKDogg · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2008, 05:53:41 PM »

I not totaly sure about that Hitech but 1 thing I would like to see used is the number of aircraft limits from 1 base. The ENY just doesn't work to control the horde. I think with the limit from 1 airfield, say same as a squad max size of 32. U couldn't up from that field if u #33 till either someone shot down or a timer of I think 5-10 mins expired (not sure if there was a timer).

Porking the fuel in AW didn't stop people from upping. It may have stopped some of the vets or the score hores from upping but that it.

SD67 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:17:41 AM »

I'm all for totally porkable field resources. it will encourage defenders and it will force the tardy to come from a different feild. The way it is now the quakers have no reason to mount an active field defence.

EagleEyes · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2008, 02:10:33 AM »

I miss the good ol days when porking fuel limited the spits and La7s...

That made porking and defending that much more important!

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2008, 04:43:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDogg

Porking the fuel in AW didn't stop people from upping. It may have stopped some of the vets or the score hores from upping but that it.

It would also encourage players to fly more supply missions to repair the base. Which in turn could create more fights because escorts would need to cover the C47s and of course the attackers would have to keep those C47s from delivering their supplies.

ack-ack

Sabre · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2008, 09:03:03 AM »

I like the way fuel limiting is handled, where maximum load out is affected, but not fuel quality. The former makes sense, the latter does not. However, I do believe it would be good to make munitions work similar to fuel, in that graduated damage would inversely reduce what is available. I would never advocate limiting either MG or canon ammo, but would like to see this graduated scale back of A2G ord based on how many ammo bunkers are destroyed.

Along similar lines, I would like to see supplies similarly reduced the longer the field is kept from being resupplied. For example, reduce by 25% the available fuel at a base for every convoy that fails to reach the field (down to a min of 25%). Making a supply run would in effect reverse the loss of one convoy. This would make convoys more worthwhile targets.

Tilt · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2008, 05:49:51 PM »

I didnt like fuel porking AW style..............it seemed illogical.

It would be more sensible to eventually have poor fuel quality if refineries were damaged

I dont like fuel rationing AH style it too seems illogical ...... fuel has always been rationed by the gallon not by the % of the tank capacity.

AW zone limit (IMO) is still the best anti horde tool available...however I would question linking the zone limit to the number of hangers available at any given field. (as per AW) IMO a dynamic Zone limit should be applied ...but only to ensure the populace of any country has access to front line fields regardless of the number of fields and the size of the populace.

Rationing ordinance with respect to ammo bunker attrition seems to make sence............. I am not sure about the best rationing mechanism. (ie big bombs lost first then medium, then small or just have ammo bunkers for large, medium and small munitions)

However the re arm pad must not be allowed to "bypass" the attrition.

I would like the concept of barracks split from supplies.

IMO Supplies should be hanger related and barracks should be troop related.

Dragon · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2008, 06:04:49 PM »

ther is another post about this in General