new idea for scenarios

[shermanjr]

the idea can to when i was playin a diff game called pacific storm allies. it goes along the fact that each base has certain need such as oil and ammo in tons and has certain amount that it can store so i though why doesnt aces high have a syetm like that with strats havin 100% and fuel tanks and bunkers fully up it will hav a set amount of oil and ammo in that base. that would make it a bit more realistic knowin that u cant take off at a small airfield with 50 full with ammo and fueled planes. each base say at smalll airfields with everythign good will have a set amount of fuel ammo till it get used up and resuplied by conveys and the like.

And another idea havin set amount of planes and vehicales at bases to at realison to scenarios and snapshot events would take away the 2 live rule and to have aircraft and gv production plants to bomb to cripple one side or the other

[AWwrgwy]

In a nutshell you are asking to not be able to fly from a base because of an arbitrary set limit?

You want to limit the fields you can fly from?

No thank you.



wrongway

[shermanjr]

not limit fields u can fly from but the number of aircraft and gvs. this would be alot better for scenarios that would have been affected by the ability to produce planes such as the battel oevr germany scanario

[AWwrgwy]

Scenarios are usually one pilot - one life.

If not, it goes by the rules for the particular scenario. So, it doesn't matter.



wrongway

[gyrene81]

i almost understand what he wrote but, with all the misspelled words and e-speak it's easier to read lulu's posts. something about scenarios and limiting aircraft and gv's.

sherman, sounds like you don't really know much about special events in general much less scenarios. there are always limitations in the setups based on whatever the special event designer considers appropriate, limited active fields, limited numbers of certain aircraft and/or ground vehicles, altitude limitations, etc...etc..etc...

and please, if you want people to take your posts even remotely serious, make a little more effort to spell and lay off the texting abbreviations.

[Tank-Ace]

Sherman, use punctuation and correct spelling.
1) its hard to take you seriously when you're too lazy to spell 'differently' and hit the shift key at the start of a sentence.
2) it really can make you hard to understand, we're not joking about that part. You already know what you want to say, we don't.

As for you're post, I'm all for more realism in scenarios. But I'd rather see realism aimed more at the strategic part of the event rather than the tactical. That includes the the ground each side holds being based on the outcome of the previous frame. For example, in a PTO event, if the USS Enterprise is sunk, its sunk for the remainder of the Scenario. Surviving carrier pilots are to be based on another CV or from a ground base in the next frame.

Another thing I would like to see is letting pilots land at bases other than their home fields for minor non-structural damage, or to have rearms fix oil and gas leaks, and fix jammed guns. A rearm is just insultingly useless to someone with an oil leak. Mechanics just slap a patch on a gas tank and you're good. Its not like its something that would require being sent back to the factory to fix.

[gyrene81]

Another thing I would like to see is letting pilots land at bases other than their home fields for minor non-structural damage, or to have rearms fix oil and gas leaks, and fix jammed guns. A rearm is just insultingly useless to someone with an oil leak. Mechanics just slap a patch on a gas tank and you're good. Its not like its something that would require being sent back to the factory to fix.

ya, not like a .50 bullet could cause that much damage to an airplane engine...



easy fix...       

[Tank-Ace]

Minor non-structural damage. A .50 caliber slug isn't going to explode and cause a bunch of damage to the wing. Its going to bore a hole through the Zero's wing and keep on going.


Are you saying it would be a complex procedure taking a mater of hours to unjam a gun or patch up a fuel tank?

[gyrene81]

Minor non-structural damage. A .50 caliber slug isn't going to explode and cause a bunch of damage to the wing. Its going to bore a hole through the Zero's wing and keep on going.


Are you saying it would be a complex procedure taking a mater of hours to unjam a gun or patch up a fuel tank?

sure, a bullet would pass through the wing without exploding...even if it hits part of the framework, hydraulics, electronics or control cables. consider if a gun got struck by a bullet which caused it to malfunction, it would have to be replaced, that's a couple of hours. wing gun may take less time than a cowl gun. if it was just the ammo belt, perhaps it could be fixed in as little as 30 minutes while the plane was being refueled. patching a fuel tank isn't as simple as slapping some bubble gum and duct tape on it. a shot up fuel tank would have to be removed from the aircraft to be fixed or replaced, that's more than a couple of hours.

[Tank-Ace]

My point is that a 30-45min procedure is compressed down to 30 seconds in game. I see no reason to limit it to fuel and ammo being refilled if we're already making the strech with the rearm pad.

[skorpion]

sure, a bullet would pass through the wing without exploding...even if it hits part of the framework, hydraulics, electronics or control cables. consider if a gun got struck by a bullet which caused it to malfunction, it would have to be replaced, that's a couple of hours. wing gun may take less time than a cowl gun. if it was just the ammo belt, perhaps it could be fixed in as little as 30 minutes while the plane was being refueled. patching a fuel tank isn't as simple as slapping some bubble gum and duct tape on it. a shot up fuel tank would have to be removed from the aircraft to be fixed or replaced, that's more than a couple of hours.

and yet we have re-arm pads that only take 30 seconds to feed in over 3000+ rounds of .50 cal ammo in a p47. IRL that would take at least 45 minutes.

[gyrene81]

My point is that a 30-45min procedure is compressed down to 30 seconds in game. I see no reason to limit it to fuel and ammo being refilled if we're already making the strech with the rearm pad.

but you're still talking repairs. it's one thing to compress the process of refueling and adding ammo...












but repairs? they couldn't just grab a torch or welding machine and start plugging up holes, especially in fuel tanks and engines.









i think the mechanics were union...

[Tank-Ace]

Alright point taken. Then how about we let them land at any active friendly base without loosing a life, but they have to wait 5 minutes before upping when they land at any base other than their home field?


And I still feel that guns should be unjammed and MAYBE prop strikes should be repaired. HTC really needs to seperate damage of the prop and the engine.