improved damage to carriers by bombs

[moot]

It's not about killing the hangers.  It's about one bomb on a runway shutting down a field, this being a carrier.

You actually can destroy a runway now.  The hardness is set at something so astronomical as to make it near impossible but it is a setting.  What happens after I have no idea.


wrongway

You'd barely notice it.  The runway object would yield to the perfectly practicable grass terrain that covers the rest of the base.

[moot]

Well, craters SHOULD effect rolling aircraft passing thru them... DUH?
Craters should close the wooden flightdeck of a carrier too... LOL!

I guess they did at one time... But there was way too much BOOOOHOOOO..
So they changed it...

Apparently some ppl just can't stand the realities of life as a WWII pilot...

Whatever, The great maker owns this cartoon world we play in,
and he can do whatever he wants with it...

500 and 1000lb'ers would pass thru the flightdeck, whether
they were AP or not!!!   LOL!    No need for AP bombs!!!


RC

The realities of a real pilot was 1 life, taxiing, no combat trim, no icons, intrument micromanagement, engine life precautions, strategic attrition, random tech and mechanical failures, bad weather, boring flights, sudden action when you don't expect it, extremely good (boring) or bad (remember 1 life only) odds, freedom greatly reduced by chain of command discipline, etc.
The reality of this game, or any comparable MMO game is that a single salvo of bombs or rockets pretty much closes an airfield.  You don't even need to take out the ack.  It's a good illustration of the difference between a game and reality.  In reality you don't play, you don't leave the enemy any lee way.  Reality's objective isn't fun.

[RipChord929]

Yeah, All true Moot...
But IMO, the neccesary "fudging" of the game conditions in the name of playability
has gone a little too far...

RC

[phatzo]

 

[Oleg]

"Friendly" bombs makes same craters as "enemy". Go figure.

[Nemisis]

OK AKP, say the carrier represents the core of a fleet or tg, or whatever you wish to call it. If that is the case then we should add troop carriers, and all other ships it represents so it can be realistic and you can choose the most important target if we get these. It would draw fire away from the carriers as the troop ships would be the most dangerous to a base.

The incendiaries should be able to damage a larger area, while doing less damage to one particular target, or make it so the fire would spread to anything within a set range of the target and once something else is on fire it can spread fire to another target. It would have to spread fairly slowly to be real and you could make it so an airfield cargo crate puts out the fires in the quarter of the town it lands in.

I will start up a damage control thread when I am done.                      Sabo, that is a good idea, it would get divebombers more use and would be fun. Of course we should probably not add it to the Ju87, that could get kind bothersome if we kept it so it will do area damage within the same range. At the least, special accommodations would have to be made.


And RC, THANK you. I agree the fudging of the rules to accommodate playability has been taken too far lately. We have gotten to the point where we are booign planes because the didn't have a long enough careear, or didn't see action with enough squadrons or crap like that all to keep the game real. While we are saying no to something that would cause the runway to go down for 5 Min's or so (BTW, not a real long amount of time compared to the 30 min a field or hanger stays down and if does the same thing.

Sorry for going on for so long, just answering all questions.

[Motherland]

Apparently some ppl just can't stand the realities of life as a WWII pilot...

Realities of a WWII pilot.
You don't spawn in real life. With cratered runways it would take 3 bombs of any size to take down a small airfield, one at each spawn. This is something you simply can't do 'in real life'. That's why there's no cratered runways.
The MA's are simply nothing like WWII combat and were never meant to be. The game is an aerial combat game using accurately modeled WWII aircraft and that is all.


It would be nice to have more flexibility in ordinance options other than General Purpose bombs, though.

[Nemisis]

It would be nice to have more flexibility in ordinance options other than General Purpose bombs, though.

Thank you Motherland. While I disagree with your opinion on the cratered field issue, I think the ord is at least 1/2 the thread, or atleast I intended it to be.

[RipChord929]

Of course there are no spawns in reality... Silly man
There is no rollin your landing gear thru craters without any effect either....

Actually, on our fixed concrete fields, in time of war, planes would be scattered all over the place.. In
earthen revetments, covered w camo nets... You'd have to Taxi to a runway, or go for it across the grass anyway...

Solution? a random spawn selection for aircraft, puts you on pavement at a random location on the field...
No auto takeoff available... Taxi, pick your own line on the grass, between the gunpits and craters, roll dice, and go!
Much like the GV spawn, random within the given area... Then, they can't "crater the spawn"... But the cratered
runways WILL effect those "gang of baboon takeoffs".. <- (loose quote from a game buddy, while watching
defenders taking off en masse) Always cracks me up! LOL!

Or, are ya sayin that, craters SHOULDN'T have any effect at all?   If so, than we differ in opinion!

Turn on friendly collisions, and turn off killshooter too!!! but thats another topic..LOL!

RC

[AKP]

OK AKP, say the carrier represents the core of a fleet or tg, or whatever you wish to call it. If that is the case then we should add troop carriers, and all other ships it represents so it can be realistic and you can choose the most important target if we get these. It would draw fire away from the carriers as the troop ships would be the most dangerous to a base.

I agree 100% with adding more ships to the task group, (former squid) but the whole way a TG operates has to change along with it.  Just not sure if that will happen.

The incendiaries should be able to damage a larger area, while doing less damage to one particular target, or make it so the fire would spread to anything within a set range of the target and once something else is on fire it can spread fire to another target. It would have to spread fairly slowly to be real and you could make it so an airfield cargo crate puts out the fires in the quarter of the town it lands in.

Realistic... but cumbersome.  Again... not too many wooden buildings for the fire to spread to across the concrete pads.  For incendiaries to be effective (and realistic) in game, they would need to remodel the small airfields to look like remote airfields... with tents, dirt runways, wooden shacks, and like RipChord929 said, planes would need to be parked out on the field.  I dont recall a whole lot of heavy bombers being able to take off or land at those fields either.  So that too would require major changes to be realistic.  Sorry, while I like your eagerness to bring more into the game, I just have a hard time with firebombs doing much to a cement and steel base.

I will start up a damage control thread when I am done.

Awesome!  While I do wish there was a way to allocate repairs, it should be balanced if it happens... if you put everything on fixing the hangar... nothing else gets fixed in the meantime.

(EDIT)

99.9% of what we put in the wishlist isnt going to make it into the game.  It doesnt mean we shouldnt ask, epsecially if its a request that will make the game more "immersible".  But the way I look at it.  I really like the game as it is now.  If some cool stuff gets added along the way... and some of it was OUR ideas... so much the better!  But I dont think they are going to reinvent the game just to add a few things that would make it a little more realistic.   

Remember, all of that stuff we are asking for requires coding.  Heavy coding eats up CPU cycles and lags the servers.  Its not just models and textures.  Every time a bomb goes off, a script runs.  The more variables that script has to check, the more time and memory it takes to do it.

[DREDIOCK]

Well, craters SHOULD effect rolling aircraft passing thru them... DUH?
Craters should close the wooden flightdeck of a carrier too... LOL!

I guess they did at one time... But there was way too much BOOOOHOOOO..
So they changed it...

Apparently some ppl just can't stand the realities of life as a WWII pilot...

Whatever, The great maker owns this cartoon world we play in,
and he can do whatever he wants with it...

500 and 1000lb'ers would pass thru the flightdeck, whether
they were AP or not!!!   LOL!    No need for AP bombs!!!


RC

If cratering were allowed
Craters on a runway should only effect heavy bombers as during WWII they were the only ones that NEEDED a paved hardened  runway to take off.
Quite often fighters took off from dirt runways.  In some cases open fields. Cratering them was pointless as they could easily be fixed by simply filling them with more dirt.

the only changes I'd really like to see to bombing are more aesthetics then anything else. Damaged CV leaving an oil slick for miles. perhaps even reducing its available speed for a period of time.Damaged support ships listing
Also secondary explosions would be nice. 

[Larry]

After you blow it up, it then respawns real quick like. I vaguely remember a thread about destroying runways and the hardness being like 24,785 lbs, but it fixes itself.



Leave these people, they are a lost cause.

125,000 pounds and downtime is 1 minute