Author Topic: ammo load reductions  (Read 1194 times)

Offline meddog

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
ammo load reductions
« on: July 25, 2010, 01:39:48 PM »
How about relating ammo loads to the number of ammo bunkers that are up some what like they do to the fuel.  I would suggest adding ammo bunkers in this case.  Maybe  4 (small fields) 6 (medium fields) 8 (large fields).  Maybe the max reduction to ammo load could be 50%.  Also like having the ability to choose fuel and bomb loads you can choose ammo loads 25, 50, 75 or 100%.
Yes I know I suck, other wise youuuuu would be dead so stop bragging.

Offline dev1ant

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 186
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2010, 01:52:42 PM »
-1  :headscratch:
Deviant

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2010, 02:02:35 PM »
You really want to not be able to fly from a field because both ammo bunkers are down and you don't like taking off with no ammo in your plane?

Seriously think about how that would effect gameplay.

How could you defend a field?

Offline meddog

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2010, 02:06:10 PM »
You really want to not be able to fly from a field because both ammo bunkers are down...?


Well i did say increase the number of ammo bunkers.
Yes I know I suck, other wise youuuuu would be dead so stop bragging.

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17419
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2010, 03:21:28 PM »
It dont make sense meddog, i can understand to bombs/rockets, but fewer cannons/mg in a plane, prolly no.

semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline EskimoJoe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2010, 03:48:36 PM »

How could you defend a field?


Ram 'em  ;)
Put a +1 on your geekness atribute  :aok

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2010, 04:09:11 PM »
It dont make sense meddog, i can understand to bombs/rockets, but fewer cannons/mg in a plane, prolly no.

semp
who says you need that extra ammo? ;)  -1
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline waystin2

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10196
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2010, 05:02:39 PM »
Nope.
CO for the Pigs On The Wing
& The nicest guy in Aces High!

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2010, 05:48:17 PM »
Hello N1K2-Js!

You'd rarely see anything else defending a field.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Greziz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2010, 08:33:56 PM »
You all are a bunch of naysayers I say negative 1 on the loss of ammo when bunkers are down cause they are always down always some loony porker suicide porking everything. But I think big plus one on the ability to take less ammo up. I fire out excess ammo on some of my rides 400 50 cals is a little over 100 lbs which makes a noticeable difference flying the p39Q the plane really begins to perform well after half the fuel is gone only reason I don't fly with 75 percent fuel as the 39 has such short legs at a full tank it gets almost 25 mins of fuel.

Offline MachFly

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6296
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2010, 10:45:22 PM »
-1

Ammo bunkers are for ord, and not bullets. If you want to stop fighters from taking off just take out the fighter hangers.
"Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others...it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."
Lt. Col. William R. Dunn
flew Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-51s, P-47s, and F-4s

Offline Imowface

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2010, 11:44:09 PM »
You all are a bunch of naysayers I say negative 1 on the loss of ammo when bunkers are down cause they are always down always some loony porker suicide porking everything. But I think big plus one on the ability to take less ammo up. I fire out excess ammo on some of my rides 400 50 cals is a little over 100 lbs which makes a noticeable difference flying the p39Q the plane really begins to perform well after half the fuel is gone only reason I don't fly with 75 percent fuel as the 39 has such short legs at a full tank it gets almost 25 mins of fuel.

try flying La's in the MA, at leased with the 39 you get a DT lol
Ла-5 Пилот снова
NASA spent 12 million dollars to develop a pen that could work in space, Russia went to space with pencils...

Offline fbWldcat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2010, 11:49:57 PM »
Try flying La's in the MA, at least with the 39 you get a DT. :lol

Fixed, leased was really bad, sticking out like a sore thumb. Terrible sorry, OCD moment, the thread may continue.
Landing is overrated.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I: I took the one less traveled by." - Robert Frost
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue." <S>

Offline Yossarian

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2516
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2010, 04:29:09 AM »
Fixed, leased was really bad, sticking out like a sore thumb. Terribly sorry, OCD moment, the thread may continue.

My apologies, too  ;)
Afk for a year or so.  The name of a gun turret in game.  Falanx, huh? :banana:
Apparently I'm in the 20th FG 'Loco Busters', or so the legend goes.
O o
/Ż________________________
| IMMA FIRIN' MAH 75MM!!!
\_ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: ammo load reductions
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2010, 04:43:10 AM »
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.