Ordnance bunkers

[j500ss]

Can't help but agree with the OP on this.   Increasing the ords to at least take several passes or a small bomb to get them down is not unrealistic at all by any means, and for what it would actually take for HTC to implement.......  Not much work into this at all on their end.

More often than not actually there is little reason to drop ords if your in the business to take a base.  Over all game play would only be affected in such a way that you may actually have to work a bit harder to achieve getting them down vs just a gun and run like all  


 

[SmokinLoon]

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.

*sigh*... keep reaching.  Keep reaching.   

HTC is trying to balance game play and realism, I'm not sure how they arrive at the one shoe fits all hardness setting.  My stance is simple: ammo bunkers and barracks are on the opposite ends of the hardness spectrum (reinforced concrete vs plywood and canvass, not to mention the # of targets on each base).  Hangers, the root of spawning aircraft and gv's, are far too easy to destroy especially with a single aircraft.  Period.  I wouldn't even bring up having multiple sets of bombers flying over dropping tons of ammo, that is a far better nod towards better gameplay and realism than a horde of P51D's that many will argue didn't carry both bombs and rockets at the same time (not my fight either way, I'm not a fanboi or anti-fanboi of the P51x). 

Just because a P51D cant bring down a hanger in 1 pass with ordnance (per my suggestion), doesn't mean it can't or wont come back for pass #2 and/or #3 and finish the job with the guns.  Don't be so dense.  There is no parallel in what your saying I'm suggesting (remove planes/reduce players).  Idiocy.  But then again you're very good at that.  Your attitude and interaction towards others is rather lacking. 

On the OBJ hardness settings: If we take a look at just how often actions are stopped because of ordnance being unavailable, vs the actions of fuel being maxed at %75, or troops being disabled, I think it is safe to say that ordnance is THEE major winner by a long shot.  Only on rare occasion are troops unavailable and actually stop a base capture from happening, and never have I heard a player say on vox "I guess I can't take the La7/Spit/etc because I can only take %75 fuel".  I
m vouching for being both of them in to play (more directly the barracks).  If ords go down, and then barracks are easy enough to destroy, then the base resuppliers will only benefit more.  Right now, AH teeters on the ordnance bunkers and very little else (in terms of base strategic OBJ).  Bring it all in to play.

[whiteman]

I want the 4th of july fire works explosion if i have to drop a 1k bomb on it.

[VonMessa]

I want the 4th of july fire works explosion if i have to drop a 1k bomb on it.

I like how you think 

[Tilt]

I agree with the OP.......... always held this view re bunkers.............

I note debate re hangers................hanger s as used in AH never really existed IMO. Whilst we can draw the link between ammo dumps held at air fields in RL and Ammo bunkers in AH and we can draw a link re fuel dumps in RL and the AH ones............ the link re RL hangers and a the availability of air craft is more tenuous. Aircraft were not parked up in hangers they were scattered around airfields................ making the availability of aircraft subject to hanger health is a misnomer IMO.

Hangers were where stuff was done aircraft repaired or supplies made  up.

I would prefer a model where aircraft and vehicles were always available but ordinance and fuel was subject to attrition to a point where such rides would be rendered inoperable.

e.g as follows

Hangers linked to supplies and the capability of re arm pads.
Barracks linked purely to troops, infantry etc
Ordinance (much harder) linked to Rockets & Bombs as now plus heavy shells.
Fuel (either harder or a lot more fuel dumps (2 or 3 times) than present) linked to fuel available as now plus when @0% no fuel would be available.

To close a field down the enemy has to destroy all the fuel but with even a 15 minute resupply time taking out all the  fuel objects should create an overlap never greater than a  couple of minutes. If the game play forces too long an over lap (total closure) then reduce the resupply time to achieve balance, basically the fuel would need near constant attrition to keep a base closed over time. At zero fuel nothing is available from the hanger. (some sort of clock advising time to availability would help in the hanger)

To deny heavy ordinance (greater than 40mm?) take the ammo bunkers down to 0%. This will also deny access to medium and heavy tanks or any thing that cannot load  ordinance  40mm or less.

To deny supplies & re arm pads take all the hangers down. A sophistication could be to link the hangers to the rebuild/resupply rates of (or add a fixed delay time to) other field objects (but not town objects). In this way killing all the hangers would not directly disable access to vehicles, boats or air craft  (as now)but would extend the time that fuel was delayed during its  re supply.

Now ordinance & fuel objects have a function at Vehicle fields. Fuel becomes the prime point of attrition but one that must be almost permanently under attrition to deny players access to AC & GV's. However the level of attrition required is reduced if all the hangers are down.

[Lab Rat 3947]

Hangers linked to supplies and the capability of re arm pads.
Barracks linked purely to troops, infantry etc
Ordinance (much harder) linked to Rockets & Bombs as now plus heavy shells.
Fuel (either harder or a lot more fuel dumps (2 or 3 times) than present) linked to fuel available as now plus when @0% no fuel would be available.

To close a field down the enemy has to destroy all the fuel but with even a 15 minute resupply time taking out all the  fuel objects should create an overlap never greater than a  couple of minutes. If the game play forces too long an over lap (total closure) then reduce the resupply time to achieve balance, basically the fuel would need near constant attrition to keep a base closed over time. At zero fuel nothing is available from the hanger. (some sort of clock advising time to availability would help in the hanger)

To deny heavy ordinance (greater than 40mm?) take the ammo bunkers down to 0%. This will also deny access to medium and heavy tanks or any thing that cannot load  ordinance  40mm or less.

To deny supplies & re arm pads take all the hangers down. A sophistication could be to link the hangers to the rebuild/resupply rates of (or add a fixed delay time to) other field objects (but not town objects). In this way killing all the hangers would not directly disable access to vehicles, boats or air craft  (as now)but would extend the time that fuel was delayed during its  re supply.

Now ordinance & fuel objects have a function at Vehicle fields. Fuel becomes the prime point of attrition but one that must be almost permanently under attrition to deny players access to AC & GV's. However the level of attrition required is reduced if all the hangers are down.

+1   


LtngRydr