Ordnance bunkers

[surfinn]

-1 to everything stoned one just said

[asterix]

I'd be fine with this, as long as there was only one bunker. You've got to make concessions for game play.

I'd also say one AP or SAP bomb should do it, to give the new ordnance some actual tactical advantage.

What do you mean by only one bunker. Instead of 2, 3 or 4 you would like to have a single bunker? If that is the case it could easily be taken out by a buff or a jabo in a single run.

Anyway +1 for increasing the hardness of the ords bunkers by some amount so that it couldn`t be strafed that easily. Hangar level seems too much, 1000lb maybe.

[Chalenge]

The ammo bunker we have is for the sake of the game I think. It's not supposed to be realistic, but instead it's just like an icon. Now, admittedly the ammo bunkers are rather fragile. Nearly any late war plane is able to take them down in one pass. The same is also true of everything else on the base. Aircraft, for instance, never depended on hangars. They had hardened revetments that made it very difficult to strafe, or bomb aircraft. Vehicle hangars were actually depots a lot like fuel and ordnance. But, again, it's for the sake of a game. If you harden these things up then it will take even larger hordes to capture a base.

Maybe it's a macho thing. We seem to be stuck in a tug-of-war between adding features that make base-rolling harder, and then we ask that it get dialed back because it's too hard.

I say leave this one alone.

[SmokinLoon]

The ammo bunker we have is for the sake of the game I think. It's not supposed to be realistic, but instead it's just like an icon. Now, admittedly the ammo bunkers are rather fragile. Nearly any late war plane is able to take them down in one pass. The same is also true of everything else on the base. Aircraft, for instance, never depended on hangars. They had hardened revetments that made it very difficult to strafe, or bomb aircraft. Vehicle hangars were actually depots a lot like fuel and ordnance. But, again, it's for the sake of a game. If you harden these things up then it will take even larger hordes to capture a base.

Maybe it's a macho thing. We seem to be stuck in a tug-of-war between adding features that make base-rolling harder, and then we ask that it get dialed back because it's too hard.

I say leave this one alone.

I see your point on the "feature/icon" thing, but that is precisely my counter point in shaking up the hardness settings.  Currently, everything is exactly the same with the same results, at least on paper.  Destroy X and prohibit Y from happening.  The ordnance and barracks are the only offensive inhibitors that are factors at a base, the radar is defensive and so is AAA.  Town buildings too.  Fuel tanks are a non-issue with the maximum penalty being %75.

I do not think it matters if an FM2, P51B, B-239, Oscar, or other such plane in the LW arena is unable to gun down an ordnance bunker.  How often do we see them used in the jabo role with guns only anyways?

I'm tipping my hat towards realism not for the sake of limiting the hordes, but rather to diversify and broaden the differences in aircraft and gv's.   

[icepac]

I'm preparing my C202 for ord porking duty at this very moment.

[Chalenge]

I see your point on the "feature/icon" thing, but that is precisely my counter point in shaking up the hardness settings.  Currently, everything is exactly the same with the same results, at least on paper.  Destroy X and prohibit Y from happening.  The ordnance and barracks are the only offensive inhibitors that are factors at a base, the radar is defensive and so is AAA.  Town buildings too.  Fuel tanks are a non-issue with the maximum penalty being %75.

I do not think it matters if an FM2, P51B, B-239, Oscar, or other such plane in the LW arena is unable to gun down an ordnance bunker.  How often do we see them used in the jabo role with guns only anyways?

I'm tipping my hat towards realism not for the sake of limiting the hordes, but rather to diversify and broaden the differences in aircraft and gv's.   

That being the case the one thing I mentioned that you failed to mention is hangars. If revetments were used instead of hangars, and the requirements to kill them were something like a high percentage destroyed, then bases would be much harder to take down. Hangars/revetments are very important for offensive and defensive capabilities. Cannon equipped aircraft can take a base down as fast as any bomber.

Like I said about hardening bunkers though; the end result will still be that the hordes will only grow in size.

[EagleDNY]

Having visited several WWII vintage military installations, I've looked into a few ordnance bunkers. Often, those used to store bombs were made from reinforced concrete, and many were under several feet of earth as well. Day to day ordnance was stored in similar bunkers or in special revetments made with concrete or brick blast walls. These all were very robust structures, for obvious reasons.

In the ETO, at front line airfields (typically that of the 9th AF), ordnance was stored in sand bagged or bulldozed revetments, or in temporary buildings that were similar to any other Nissen type hut used for all purposes. Only the ordnance used that day would be near the field. These storage locations were a safe distance from the airfield proper, and carefully cammo'd to hide them from aerial detection. A centralized bunker complex would supply the fields via truck.

In the game, almost any fighter can destroy the ordnance bunkers with gunfire. This allows one guy to completely change game play with one suicidal fighter run. I think it should be harder to disable ordnance.

My wish is that the bunkers be hardened to require at least the same weight of ordnance as the Vehicle Hanger. Inasmuch as this is simply a map setting, it should require a minimum of effort, assuming HTC agrees with me....

Thanks.

 

I do like the idea of hardening the ammo bunkers - it is ridiculous to watch someone strafing down a hardened, concrete bunker with one pass of .50 cal MGs. 

I would also like to see the hardness done by the SIZE of the field.   A frontline grass field (S) might have just a sandbagged hole in the ground with some metal plating over it for a bomb dump while a rear-area bomber base would have reinforced concrete.  I'd suggest hardness of ammo bunkers of 500Lb for a S field, going up to 1000Lbs for a M, and 2000Lbs at a L field. 

$.02

[Randy1]

. . . I'd suggest hardness of ammo bunkers of 500Lb for a S field, going up to 1000Lbs for a M, and 2000Lbs at a L field. 
. . .

Now that is well thought out.    +1

[SmokinLoon]

That being the case the one thing I mentioned that you failed to mention is hangars. If revetments were used instead of hangars, and the requirements to kill them were something like a high percentage destroyed, then bases would be much harder to take down. Hangars/revetments are very important for offensive and defensive capabilities. Cannon equipped aircraft can take a base down as fast as any bomber.

Like I said about hardening bunkers though; the end result will still be that the hordes will only grow in size.

I didn't mention the hanger vs revetment because I didn't feel the need to agree or disagree, or even to voice my opinion on the current hanger hardness.  Since you brought it up though I think it is far too easy to shut down a field and more in specific it is far too easy for a single engine fighter (like the P51D) to bring down a hanger.  If HTC wanted to test the waters a wee bit and change the hardness settings of the VH w/o effecting game play much they could increase the hardness to 3000 lbs even and make it impossible for a P51D to destroy a hanger in a single pass with ords alone (max ord damage for P51D is 2936 lbs).  There would only be three single engine planes left that could get the job done in 1 pass.  

On increasing the hardness for ord bunkers = larger hordes debate.... I disagree.  Ord bunkers would still be a 1 man job, it would simply take a more mission specific load out and the typical 1 pass/2 ord bunkers destroyed via P51D would be a thing of the past.  Ordnance or cannons would be needed, typically.  On the other hand, barracks would be a viable target of the P51D's guns because the light construction of the canvass and plywood.  Give and take. The FM2's quad .50's would be a viable weapon vs barracks.  There are 5 barracks on a small airfield, even more on a medium airfield and even more on a large airfield.      

[Chalenge]

Ironic. You're arguing two sides of the same coin. You want ordnance to be harder because it was in real life, but you want hangars unrealistic in hardness whereas in reality a 100lb bomb would destroy a hangar. Also, if you take the hangar killing capabilities of the pony away, then very few ponies will carry bombs at all. Why would anyone load up with something that won't kill anything? For dar and ordnance?

Why not just argue that you want certain planes removed, or the population of AH decreased by 60%? It's the same thing.

[Volron]

If you drive the tank you like the bunker weak, if you drive the arrow plane you like the bunker strong, if you drive the PT boat you question the justice of getting your torpedoes from an airfield and your boats from a hanger.

 

[Arlo]

If we go into what realistically did what in WWII vs AHII, whether it's object hardness, ord damage, how long something should be disabled or how long it really took to reload/refuel (repair for that matter), the very existence of spawning anywhere other than a plane hangar (or flightline), vehicle 'hangar' or dockside (for PTs), what it really took to capture towns (and, as a result, bases and ports) ... then this kind of wish becomes practically impractical.  

[guncrasher]

i would have to agree i dont like that only need i short burst of .50 cal fire to kill it

you need more than a short burst to kill a bunker.


semp

[Tracerfi]

you need more than a short burst to kill a bunker.


semp

i was exaggerating

[Patches1]

How about leaving the field ord bunkers and hardness as they currently are and simply add a hardened ord bunker away from the field. Tie the hardened ord bunker downtime to the strat ord bunkers and have the hardened ord bunker re-supply the field ord bunkers via gvs with field supplies from a hot pad at the hardened ord bunker. Perhaps this same idea can be added to the fuel bunkers also which could possibly allow fuel bunkers to drop to 25%, or even 0%. Put the hardness value of hardened bunkers somewhere between 20,000-30,000 lbs and allow them to be resupplied from the nearest friendly airfield, or gv spawn point at a rate similar to the HQ.

I like realism in games, but I also want to keep playing a game that is fun. Too much reality takes away from the fun of the game, and too much gaminess takes away the fun of the reality, for me. I think the above is a fair compromise between the two.

...just some thoughts.