Ammo Bunker revision

[Hazard69]

I say just increase the ammo bunkers hardness to 3000lbs like hangars. After all it is "bunker"; its supposed to be tougher than a tent or a fuel tank no?

Now with that change implemented I wouldn't mind seeing whels idea of reducing available bomb size. Destroying half a base's ordinance supply should have some effect, and since the game cant randomly decide who to allot bombs and who not to, giving smaller ords to everyone might just be the best equivalent.

Tired of seeing anything other than US aircraft?

Actually Karnak, I dont think it would lead to that. If anything non-US aircraft are normally not used cause they cant carry the larger bombs. If even the US rides are limited to 250lbs why shouldn't someone up a 190 or NIK or KI in its place?


Oh and whilst we at it, destroying fuel bunkers at a base should bring fuel down to 25% again. 75% is what most people use when all fuel bunkers are up. As it is now we might as well make fuel bunkers indestructible. At least would spare some of us the frame killing smoke.

My $0.02

[Karnak]

Actually Karnak, I dont think it would lead to that. If anything non-US aircraft are normally not used cause they cant carry the larger bombs. If even the US rides are limited to 250lbs why shouldn't someone up a 190 or NIK or KI in its place?

In the OP's proposal all aircraft cannons would only have 25% of their ammo.  That is 37 or 38 rounds of ammo for the Ki-84, La-7 or 20mm armed Bf109s, 62 or 63 for the Fw190 and a whopping 30 for the Spitfire 8, 9, 14 and 16, Yak 9U or Ki-61.  Why take that when you can take a .50 cal armed aircraft will full ammo?

[Hap]

Shoot, go the distance: unlimited fuel, ammo, barracks. 

Scratch the Strat System entirely.

Arcadeville Rules

<sigh>

[whels]

In the OP's proposal all aircraft cannons would only have 25% of their ammo.  That is 37 or 38 rounds of ammo for the Ki-84, La-7 or 20mm armed Bf109s, 62 or 63 for the Fw190 and a whopping 30 for the Spitfire 8, 9, 14 and 16, Yak 9U or Ki-61.  Why take that when you can take a .50 cal armed aircraft will full ammo?

MG ammo was common anywhere, Cannon for the most part was specialized ammo. But to balance it out, if ammo
all ammo bunkers are down reduce MG ammo to 50% normal load.

reducing ammo/bombs based on Ammo bunkers down is a way to simulate the ammo/bomb shortage
induced by bunker damage.


i liked the other sims way of doing it to. if fuel was damage planes had reduced engine preformance, if ammo was down  bullets had reduced leath. and if hangers down the plane had a chance of having leaks on popup.

[Spikes]

Put this into a different arena, it's NOT a good idea for the LW arenas.

[Karnak]

MG ammo was common anywhere, Cannon for the most part was specialized ammo.

I hardly think you can claim that cannon ammo was specialized when most nations standard armament was cannons.  Maybe for the United States, but certainly not for Germany, Britain, Russia or Japan.

Besides, this is a fundamentally bad idea regardless of which ammo it does or does not affect.


Anybody else remember when fuel could be porked to 25%?  Whole fronts were shut down by toolshedders.  Worse, these sorts of things disproportionally affect the side that is lower on numbers/being ganged, making it even harder for them to fight back.

[whels]

I hardly think you can claim that cannon ammo was specialized when most nations standard armament was cannons.  Maybe for the United States, but certainly not for Germany, Britain, Russia or Japan.

Besides, this is a fundamentally bad idea regardless of which ammo it does or does not affect.


Anybody else remember when fuel could be porked to 25%?  Whole fronts were shut down by toolshedders.  Worse, these sorts of things disproportionally affect the side that is lower on numbers/being ganged, making it even harder for them to fight back.

most ammo made was for MGs for ground troops which as a side product could be used for plane MGs.
is why the US stayed with 30 n 50cal so long, as we had a abundant supply already, and to make 20mm for planes would have been specialized.


as far as fuel, it was great when it was 25% porkable, it helped a ton the ganged side to slow down
the hordes roll, now with 75% only, its a joke to even hit it.

[Karnak]

most ammo made was for MGs for ground troops which as a side product could be used for plane MGs.
is why the US stayed with 30 n 50cal so long, as we had a abundant supply already, and to make 20mm for planes would have been specialized.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

The United States made almost one million rounds of ammo for the German MG151/20 when we were thinking of copying it.

Do you really think that the British and Japanese, who spent a hugely disproportionate percentage of their budgets on airforces just produced ammo for their aircraft as an after thought?  Really?

Have you ever heard of a German or Japanese fighter, late in the war when they had been decimated and pulverized, not being able to take off with loaded cannons?  Crap fuel, yes, but not once have I heard of less than full loads of ammo.

I think you overestimate how hard it is to produce basic 20mm rounds like the Hispano used.  German MINE shells, sure, but their basic HE, no.


Well, ok.  On place only have I heard of ammo being an issue for cannons, and there is no indication it wouldn't have been an issue for .50 cals had any of the aircraft there used them.  One of the reasons given for taking two of the four 20mm cannons off of the Spitfires sent to Malta was to save ammo.  But that is about as extreme a case as you can get.  It was, at the time, very difficult to supply to the point that these Spitfires were being launched off of carriers hundreds of miles from Malta.  The extra pair of cannons were seen as spares.

[Widewing]

Geez guys, no more elaborate solution is required than hardening the bunkers. It's just a few mouse clicks in the arena set-up....


My regards,

Widewing