Ammo bunker model is porked

[Becinhu]

I don't think hardening the ord bunkers would handicap gameplay.  Dar and fuel a 250lber would kill, ord bunkers should require a 1000lber and not 250.  It would help eliminate the suicide porkers.

[Lusche]

I don't think hardening the ord bunkers would handicap gameplay.  Dar and fuel a 250lber would kill, ord bunkers should require a 1000lber and not 250.  It would help eliminate the suicide porkers.

And the possible consequences for gameplay balance?

[Becinhu]

I don't think it would unbalance gameplay at all.  It would still only take 1 pilot to take down ord at a small base.  Two pilots or two single runs by one player for medium and large airfields.  Theoretically speaking I could take a single p-47 d-40 with 10 HVARs and 3 500lbers and kill all 4 ords the dar and 4 ack guns without even going to guns.  With luck I could deack the entire base as well with a full gun load and most likely have enough rounds left to deack town most of the way.  Even though this sim isn't 100% realistic, the ease that one can neuter a base is borderline arcade-like.

[Beefcake]

+1

I've always wished that Ammo Bunkers would actually be bunkers and thus be rather hard to kill. Their weakness adds an odd imbalance to the game. Think of it this way, there is only 1 way to disable fighters and that's killing the fighter hangers. However, on the flip side there are 2 ways to disable bombers, 1. is to drop the bomber hangers, 2. simply drop the Ammo Bunkers and tada you've grounded most bombers.

[branch37]

Also add a large explosion when the ord bunkers are destroyed as a result of the stored ordinance being detonated. 

[DREDIOCK]

Also add a large explosion when the ord bunkers are destroyed as a result of the stored ordinance being detonated. 

Yes to massive secondary explosions for both ammo and fuel bunkers!

[EagleDNY]

+1 from someone who regularly porks them with 4 x .50 cals.

[B-17]

PSSSSST

We have the 1000lb bomb in game...

don't tell anyone though

Sorry, meant the 10000 lber.

Theoretically speaking I could take a single p-47 d-40 with 10 HVARs and 3 500lbers and kill all 4 ords the dar and 4 ack guns without even going to guns. 

Just curious-- why not 2x1000 lbs, plus the 500?

[VonMessa]

Well then..

I want auto ack turned off at un-manned bases until there is at least one person in a manned gun.

This way, I can come haul-arsing up to the ord bunkers in my jeep and toss a satchel charge or perhaps a lit, 1/4 stick of dynamite in the door.   

 

[Krusty]

I don't think it would unbalance gameplay at all.

That is where you are wrong.

So at 1000lbs per bunker, it would take a single pilot to drop 4 of them?

Last I recall that requires heavy level bombers to get 4000lbs or ord per plane. I think they are too easy to strafe, but upping the lbs required would definitely change base take, base pork, and other aspects of gameplay. For gameplay balance and the ability to change the battle along a front or even just at one base (standard for stopping base defenders from bombing your GVs is to kill their ord!)

You may not like it to lose the ord, but it's lose-able for a reason. Just up from another field. If you're upping heavy you don't need to take off 20mi away. You can risk taking off 40mi away. You're still flying hundreds of miles an hour.

[Becinhu]

That is where you are wrong.

So at 1000lbs per bunker, it would take a single pilot to drop 4 of them?

Last I recall that requires heavy level bombers to get 4000lbs or ord per plane. I think they are too easy to strafe, but upping the lbs required would definitely change base take, base pork, and other aspects of gameplay. For gameplay balance and the ability to change the battle along a front or even just at one base (standard for stopping base defenders from bombing your GVs is to kill their ord!)

You may not like it to lose the ord, but it's lose-able for a reason. Just up from another field. If you're upping heavy you don't need to take off 20mi away. You can risk taking off 40mi away. You're still flying hundreds of miles an hour.

I'm not talking about bombers porking ords. I mean the single dora that comes in and porks ords then bails.  With a fully loaded P-47 you could get 3 bunkers and damage the fourth. Two 1000lbers (one per bunker), One 500 plus 6 HVARS for third bunker, thus leaving 4 HVARS to damage but not drop fourth.  You could strafe the last bunker, but it would require more work than a 2 second pass.  As it is right now I can drop all 4 bunkers with a pony with 2 500s and 6 HVARs and not use guns at all.  It's too easy.  Suicide porking would require more than one run or more than one pilot.

[Tilt]

You may not like it to lose the ord, but it's lose-able for a reason.

I tend to believe its hardness is set thru anachronism rather than reason............ as you say porking the ord is the first step to giving GV's the advantage when considering base suppression. The tactic should be achievable IMO but not so easily as it is now. To model stuff so far from reality and argue that its a game play feature is  a retrograde step IMO. It just flags up that the game play model needs some attention.

May as well argue that the TigerII is too well armoured and make it more destroyable.

Armour was vulnerable to heavy ordinance, bunkered heavy ordinance was never so easily attritable as it is in game. If making the ammo bunker hardness more realistic un balances the game play model then lets look at re balancing thru more realism rather than less.(multiple ways this could be done)

Actually as AH adds heavier armour to the game the arguement for harder bunkers actually supports the old game play model in this respect.

[MK-84]

I'm pretty sure ammo bunkers are not "porked"  I'm going to venture a guess that it's for game-play purposes.  Losing Ords at a field under attack promotes the use of ground support aircraft and vehicles at the defending base.  This gives a variety of aircraft in flight as well as vehicles, making for a better gaming experience.

Flame on

[gyrene81]

I'm pretty sure ammo bunkers are not "porked"  I'm going to venture a guess that it's for game-play purposes.  Losing Ords at a field under attack promotes the use of ground support aircraft and vehicles at the defending base.  This gives a variety of aircraft in flight as well as vehicles, making for a better gaming experience.

Flame on

so increasing the hardness to require something like a 500lbs bomb would not be in the interest of "game play"? think maybe it might improve the fight for a base a bit more than it is right now where a few 20mm rounds can knock out what should be a reinforced structure?

[surfinn]

I'm for it as long as its given a weak point like the door. Drop a bomb close to the front door it goes boom. Tank round hits the front door it goes boom.