Ammo Bunkers/ town buildings

[AKDogg]

I feel the ammo bunkers should not be able to be shot down using guns.  Should only be destroyed by ords (bombs or rockets).  Bunkers are Concrete structures that 98% of the guns in WWII couldn't penetrate through.  As a matter of fact, The town shouldn't be able to be destroyed by guns.  Bombs and rockets only or HE rounds from a tank.  Osti's and WW's were never used in WWII for such a thing.  A single osti currently can deack and destroy the town by itself.  It takes only 2 WW's to kill a town without supply's, 1 with supply's.  This is just wrong and shouldn't be.

[USRanger]

True, and would change the game dramatically.  I like this idea.

[Spikes]

I wholeheartedly agree with the ammo bunker idea. But you are saying no planes ever strafed buildings in WWII?

[1701E]

I was just thinking about the town buildings idea a few days ago.  I was taking up a B25H thinking "I really doubt WWs were using to destroy buildings like this".  I hate having a Gv attack on a town and it consists of 7 WWs and 1 Panzer.  Sorry, but it bugs me.

So, I say yes to the strength upgrade.

[AKDogg]

I not saying strengthen them, I just saying remove the capabilty of gunning them down with MG's and even cannons.  Even town buildings would take a god amount of ammo with a 30mm to destroy a building let alone a town.

Yesterday there was 1 FW190D-9 that took ords out at 3 small fields just by gunning them down in 1 flight.  Now tell me if there something wrong there.  Only way for something like that to happen is if the Ammo bunkers are shelters, not concrete buildings like it shows.

[StokesAk]

+1 the word "Bunker" entails something.

[AKDogg]

I wholeheartedly agree with the ammo bunker idea. But you are saying no planes ever strafed buildings in WWII?

They strafed buildings, but I can tell u they didn't destroy them by doing that.  Reason planes strafed buildings was to kill soldiers, not the buildings.  Bombs and rockets were used to destroy.

[Banshee7]

The man has a point.

[Spikes]

They strafed buildings, but I can tell u they didn't destroy them by doing that.  Reason planes strafed buildings was to kill soldiers, not the buildings.  Bombs and rockets were used to destroy.

Well, doing this could affect good and bad...the good...less land grabbing and more fighting (takes more time to get town down). It'd be a PITA when buildings pop though...

The bad is a lot more whining on the BBS.

[AKDogg]

Well, us AK's kinda alrdy tested what ords can do to a town by using 3 lancs.  We destroyed 95% of the town in 1 pass.  2 Hvy fighters took the rest of the town down and base was captured.  What it will do is actually create a more strategic tactics and/or more fighting to get the base instead of these 4 110's noe sneaking to a base and take town down with M3 standing by. 

Town buildings I not as concerned with as much as Ammo Bunkers.  Like stokes said "Bunkers", not sheds. 

[Spikes]

Well, us AK's kinda alrdy tested what ords can do to a town by using 3 lancs.  We destroyed 95% of the town in 1 pass.  2 Hvy fighters took the rest of the town down and base was captured.  What it will do is actually create a more strategic tactics and/or more fighting to get the base instead of these 4 110's noe sneaking to a base and take town down with M3 standing by. 

Town buildings I not as concerned with as much as Ammo Bunkers.  Like stokes said "Bunkers", not sheds. 

Well, I'm for the idea...I do like it but you know there's going to be plenty of whining and questions of "WHY WONT MY GUNZ KILL ZE TOWNZ!". Then they'll come and whine on the boards, and on and on. But I do agree that it would be tactically better...but wouldn't you just get 4 flights of NOE buffs instead of 4 110's?

[AKDogg]

I rather 4 noe buffs then 4+ noe Ho'n 110's lol.

[1701E]

I not saying strengthen them, I just saying remove the capabilty of gunning them down with MG's and even cannons. 

Not to be nitpicky, but would that not be, in turn, strengthening them?

I was just using the word in lack of something better.

[Spikes]

Not to be nitpicky, but would that not be, in turn, strengthening them?

I was just using the word in lack of something better.

Not really, you would still use the same amount of ord to take it down, but you just can't use guns. I see what you are geting at though.

[Scratchman]

I feel the ammo bunkers should not be able to be shot down using guns.  Should only be destroyed by ords (bombs or rockets).  Bunkers are Concrete structures that 98% of the guns in WWII couldn't penetrate through.  As a matter of fact, The town shouldn't be able to be destroyed by guns.  Bombs and rockets only or HE rounds from a tank.  Osti's and WW's were never used in WWII for such a thing.  A single osti currently can deack and destroy the town by itself.  It takes only 2 WW's to kill a town without supply's, 1 with supply's.  This is just wrong and shouldn't be.

+1 ( Ammo BUNKERS ) it's been long overdue to fix this, IMAO. As for the bldgs., if a base is well defended it's a moot point. Far easier to de-ack and capture a V-base. Why I would like V-bases to have 88's staged to defend against land attacks, and more ack's for air attack, ( i.e. a single 110 strafing and an M3 waiting to capture. )