Author Topic: fire weapons?  (Read 1684 times)

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
fire weapons?
« on: December 28, 2011, 01:20:55 AM »
a regular naplam bomb can kill/burn as much as a 1kbomb in town destruction or kill a tank with same destructive force/ not kill it. and if we had gv flamethrowers could burn buildings for (X) time shooting at it and same for other gvs. It really doesn't have to add much more then a little graphics show to the game. thoughts?? 

Offline FBCrabby

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
      • AHFreebirds.com
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2011, 01:35:48 AM »
Yes - but it would also eat the local Frame Rate... Imagine carpet bombing a town... and the town is "burning" - thats quite a strain on the computer...

Same goes for the gv flamethrower... Imagine yourself sitting within a bunch of smoke rounds... Its that kind of lag we're talking about here...

+10 would love to see/use it

-50 for technical obstacles not so much graphic
AH-Freebirds.com - FB$ - Proud Squadron Of Aces High II

Actively Recruiting! - Join FB$ Today!

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2011, 02:01:34 AM »
Yes - but it would also eat the local Frame Rate... Imagine carpet bombing a town... and the town is "burning" - thats quite a strain on the computer...

Same goes for the gv flamethrower... Imagine yourself sitting within a bunch of smoke rounds... Its that kind of lag we're talking about here...

+10 would love to see/use it

-50 for technical obstacles not so much graphic

totally under stand buff not getting them, and it could be a quick fire flash hair more then our present bomb explosion. gv flame bursts could be short too

Offline Skyguns MKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2011, 02:38:10 AM »
Yes - but it would also eat the local Frame Rate... Imagine carpet bombing a town... and the town is "burning" - that's quite a strain on the computer...

Same goes for the gv flamethrower... Imagine yourself sitting within a bunch of smoke rounds... Its that kind of lag we're talking about here...

+10 would love to see/use it

-50 for technical obstacles not so much graphic

Not that bad is it? If you computer can handle your plane when it turns into a fireball, it can handle this i would imagine...

Offline Ashley Pomeroy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2011, 02:40:32 PM »
a regular naplam bomb can kill/burn as much as a 1kbomb in town destruction or kill a tank with same destructive force/ not kill it. and if we had gv flamethrowers could burn buildings for (X) time shooting at it and same for other gvs. It really doesn't have to add much more then a little graphics show to the game. thoughts?? 

IL-2 has these - the F4 Corsair can drop napalm tanks, and the IL-2 itself has a VAP-250 phosphorus dispenser, which would probably be illegal nowadays. But imagine those tank crewmen boiling alive in their tanks! The problem is that incendiary weapons work best against soft targets, such as people and wooden houses and fuel dumps etc, but Aces High tends to have concrete buildings. A standard high explosive bomb would be more effective against that kind of target, so why not take that?

As for tank-mounted flamethrowers, you'd be blown away by the other tanks before you got into range. And you'd be visible from miles away.

IL-2 also has (a) Tiny Tim rockets for the Corsair (b) parafrag bombs for the A-20. The former could easily find a place in Aces High, the latter less so. And armour-piercing cluster bombs.

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2011, 05:06:13 PM »
IL-2 has these - the F4 Corsair can drop napalm tanks, and the IL-2 itself has a VAP-250 phosphorus dispenser, which would probably be illegal nowadays. But imagine those tank crewmen boiling alive in their tanks! The problem is that incendiary weapons work best against soft targets, such as people and wooden houses and fuel dumps etc, but Aces High tends to have concrete buildings. A standard high explosive bomb would be more effective against that kind of target, so why not take that?

As for tank-mounted flamethrowers, you'd be blown away by the other tanks before you got into range. And you'd be visible from miles away.

IL-2 also has (a) Tiny Tim rockets for the Corsair (b) parafrag bombs for the A-20. The former could easily find a place in Aces High, the latter less so. And armour-piercing cluster bombs.

I think the Flamethrowers had a range of 30-60 meters, roughly 100-200 feet. Given I don't recall the last time I've ever seen a tank closer then 800 let alone 200ft maximum for the flamethrower to score a hit, it would be a pretty useless weapon for Aces High.

Although it would had some applications, I just don't see it being added. I wouldn't mind Napalm for towns, don't recall the distance and width of the destructive power, it would be interesting to add, especially to see GV's in a line.
JG 52

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2011, 08:10:01 PM »
I think the Flamethrowers had a range of 30-60 meters, roughly 100-200 feet. Given I don't recall the last time I've ever seen a tank closer then 800 let alone 200ft maximum for the flamethrower to score a hit, it would be a pretty useless weapon for Aces High.

Although it would had some applications, I just don't see it being added. I wouldn't mind Napalm for towns, don't recall the distance and width of the destructive power, it would be interesting to add, especially to see GV's in a line.

well i know you butcher your always in the back :) i killed a tiger 1 and 2 with an m18 today from 50 and 100yrd and today a rook m16 raced passed my tiger at 25 yrd, i couldnt even spin the turret so i just let him go. there would be many uses for fire not including town. Yes what it could do can be done with stuff we already have, but who knows maybe you can even burn out a tank on other side of the berms giving it a niche to that dreaded/ boring wait for who is going to round the corner.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2011, 08:58:58 PM »
big -1 if it damages GV's on the basis of cooking the crew alive in a big steel preassure-cooker or the engine/paint catching fire. Napalm spreads out in a rather large area, doesn't it?


Would just be a way to keep the GV's on the concrete even with the reduced icon range (you wouldn't need to be real accurate if your bomb will cover 200ft radius).
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2011, 09:54:18 PM »
big -1 if it damages GV's on the basis of cooking the crew alive in a big steel preassure-cooker or the engine/paint catching fire. Napalm spreads out in a rather large area, doesn't it?


Would just be a way to keep the GV's on the concrete even with the reduced icon range (you wouldn't need to be real accurate if your bomb will cover 200ft radius).

we have 4000lb bombs... remember lol

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2011, 10:29:50 PM »
yeah but those are either on a lancaster thats a big slow easy-to-hit target, on a B-29 so high up that even a near-hit is pure dumb luck, or on a Ju-87 thats probably not going to survive to drop his bomb.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2011, 10:34:19 PM »
yeah but those are either on a lancaster thats a big slow easy-to-hit target, on a B-29 so high up that even a near-hit is pure dumb luck, or on a Ju-87 thats probably not going to survive to drop his bomb.

i do it all the time in a stuka and the new mossie. but anyway i was thinging only the size oa a 1k lb bomb for naplam drops

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2011, 10:50:43 PM »
Don't see much point to it if it offers nothing over our regular bombs.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2011, 10:59:42 PM »
Don't see much point to it if it offers nothing over our regular bombs.
no it doesnt but it does:) and you know it

Offline olds442

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2239
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2011, 03:38:52 PM »
no it doesnt but it does:) and you know it
it offers you single digit frame rate.
only a moron would use Dolby positioning in a game.
IGN: cutlass "shovels and rakes and implements of destruction"

Offline SpencAce

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: fire weapons?
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2011, 06:12:54 PM »
Not that bad is it? If you computer can handle your plane when it turns into a fireball, it can handle this i would imagine...
thats a pretty hard fact to deny, +1 for this idea
**SSgt**