Author Topic: Ammo Bunker revision  (Read 882 times)

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Ammo Bunker revision
« on: August 17, 2008, 01:05:40 PM »
Since fuel can bombed and reduced to 75% available.  why not make it a simular way for ammo/bombs.

100% up all ammo/bombs available
75% up  Bombs 500kg/1000bls or less available,  75% cannon ammo load
50% up  "    "   250kg/500lbs   or less available,  50% cannon ammo load
25%  up  "   "   100kg/250lbs   or less available,  25% cannon ammo load

as it is now ammo had ZERO effect on fighters which it could in RL
have a affect on ammo quality and quantity, especially the high end
cannons.

This would also leave field defenders with atleast 250 lb bombs to defend with.

Offline Auger

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
      • AKs Home Page
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2008, 01:07:56 PM »
Please do not give any more incentive to the pork & auger faction.  They are annoying enough as it is.

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10908
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2008, 01:09:15 PM »
Never mind
« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 01:24:57 PM by Easyscor »
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2008, 01:17:22 PM »
Please do not give any more incentive to the pork & auger faction.  They are annoying enough as it is.


lol this would negate their current bomb auger. now its all up or all down for bombs. atleast we would
have small bombs available.

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15851
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2008, 04:48:50 PM »
No. Some noob comes in with 1 bomb, see's the nice white building and drops the bomb, sprays into it and augers, kills the bunker. Now we have no 1000lb bombs, just because some idiot didn't know what he was doing. If this happened I'd say we need plenty more ammo bunkers on the base.
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

FlyKommando.com

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2008, 06:40:26 PM »
No. Some noob comes in with 1 bomb, see's the nice white building and drops the bomb, sprays into it and augers, kills the bunker. Now we have no 1000lb bombs, just because some idiot didn't know what he was doing. If this happened I'd say we need plenty more ammo bunkers on the base.

lol noob comes in now, kills all 4 bunkers in 2 or  3 passes, and you got ZERO bombs now.

and yes id say add more bunkers to the field like they did Troops.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2008, 08:24:03 PM »
lol noob comes in now, kills all 4 bunkers in 2 or  3 passes, and you got ZERO bombs now.

and yes id say add more bunkers to the field like they did Troops.

Agree with this.   
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2008, 08:38:21 PM »
I like the idea.  The "all or none" isnt accurate in the least bit.  If there are 4 ammo bunkers providing ammo and ords to the entire wing of aircraft available and a few of them are destroyed, that should change everything.  If a player can only take up a plane with %50 ammo or only 250lb bombs or less (or other such variable).... just think how that changes the dynamics of the game.

However.... I think it means we should toss around the idea of having more ammo bunkers AND making them tougher.  Without looking at my sheets w/ the maps on them... each airfield has only 4 ammo bunkers, yes?  Why not add 2 more to the medium fields and 4 more to the large airfields?  While were at it, make it so they need 500lbs worth of ord to be destroyed instead of 250lbs.  That doubles the amount of cannon fire needed to take them out.

Also... what about making re-supplying the base more beneficial to the ammo bunkers?  Is there a way to code in a 30min boost instead of 15 min just for ammo bunkers?  It would make re-supplying a base that much more important.

I've only been playing this AH2 for 8 months.  But in this short time span I'm seeing many things that could add to the strategic element and bust out of the same-same routine of the game and the O/P's suggestion is a very good place to start.
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline whels

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2008, 09:36:31 PM »
on resupply, in another old sim, we could select which type of cargo to supply a field with,
ammo fuel or troops.  how about   making it ammo fuel troops or field.  field resupps everything
like now. bu if u bring in specific cargo like ammo, it only resupps ammo on the field and regens it
2 or 3 x normal?

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2008, 11:02:59 PM »
which the more I think of it... only reducing FUEL down to %75 is a joke.  It should go down to %25 if all of the fuel bunkers are destroyed.  Just how many planes go up with %100 and DT?  Very few, I'd bet.  NONE of the bombers do.

The O/P helped get the ball rolling on this issue.  I think there are tons more ideas out there just waiting to help this element take shape.   ;)
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Auger

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
      • AKs Home Page
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2008, 12:03:15 AM »
lol this would negate their current bomb auger. now its all up or all down for bombs. atleast we would
have small bombs available.

Yes, and almost no cannon ammo.  That right there is enough reason for the porkers to take out the ammo bunkers across an entire front.  If you thought ENY sucks, wait until you're backed into a corner with no cannon planes to defend against the horde. 

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2008, 12:07:00 AM »
Yes, and almost no cannon ammo.  That right there is enough reason for the porkers to take out the ammo bunkers across an entire front.  If you thought ENY sucks, wait until you're backed into a corner with no cannon planes to defend against the horde

ah... but you're assuming that the other team will have full ord and that your base wont be re-supplied.   ;)  See where the stategic element comes into play??? It s the same for all three teams.  Ords down?  Get a re-supply mission going.  Tired of being raped by hordes?  Get a mission going and go take out the ords at their nearby fields ASAP. 

What comes around can be sent back around in this game.   ;)
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2008, 12:38:16 AM »
Since fuel can bombed and reduced to 75% available.  why not make it a simular way for ammo/bombs.

100% up all ammo/bombs available
75% up  Bombs 500kg/1000bls or less available,  75% cannon ammo load
50% up  "    "   250kg/500lbs   or less available,  50% cannon ammo load
25%  up  "   "   100kg/250lbs   or less available,  25% cannon ammo load

as it is now ammo had ZERO effect on fighters which it could in RL
have a affect on ammo quality and quantity, especially the high end
cannons.

This would also leave field defenders with atleast 250 lb bombs to defend with.
Tired of seeing anything other than US aircraft?

That is the effect this would have.  While you might see that as a good thing, very few other players would agree.

In short, this is one of the worst ideas and least thought out ideas I have ever seen posted here.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2008, 11:00:35 AM »
Tired of seeing anything other than US aircraft?

That is the effect this would have.  While you might see that as a good thing, very few other players would agree.

In short, this is one of the worst ideas and least thought out ideas I have ever seen posted here.

Oh come now.  I'd be willing to bet if this idea was implemented it was effect ALL calibers and not just 20mm cannons and up.  The .30 cal and .50 cal would be included, no doubt.  You've been around long enough to know better that to read word for word an idea or request.   ;) 
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Ammo Bunker revision
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2008, 11:05:07 AM »
Oh come now.  I'd be willing to bet if this idea was implemented it was effect ALL calibers and not just 20mm cannons and up.  The .30 cal and .50 cal would be included, no doubt.  You've been around long enough to know better that to read word for word an idea or request.   ;) 
And that would be an even worse idea than the OP's.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-