Target Destruction Requirements for the MA

[JimmyD3]

1. Increase the required amount of damage for the hangers from 3,000 lbs. to 4,000 lbs., the same as a shore battery.

2. Increase required amount of damage for the ammo bunkers to 1,000 lbs..

3. Increase the required amount of damage for the Cruiser to 4,000 lbs., keep the remaining "other" ships at 2,000 lbs.

Let the debate begin.

[Zacherof]

1. Sure
2. No
3. Eh 3000

[doright]

1. Hangers aren't yards thick reinforced concrete structures like the shore bats so -1.

2. I agreed the ammo bunkers need to be tweeked. If they are reinforced concrete structures as modeled in game then only bombs or large cannons should do damage to them. A ammo stock pile surrounded by earthen berms might be damaged by aircraft fire but gremlins have to hit them just right. Kind of silly that ammo bunkers, barracks, radar, fuel, and a town building all take the same amount of damage to destroy. +1

3. Would be fun if ships had more then all or nothing damage. Sure guns and radar soak up damage, but imagine if rudders got stuck, engines destroyed, and hundreds of P's bailing overboard into the water.

[Lusche]

Let the debate begin.

Not before you have stated why those changes and how they would improve the game 

[doright]

Not before you have stated why those changes and how they would improve the game  

We all know that a determined (suicidal) pork run is pretty much unstoppable in a cannon equipped airplane that has altitude. If, however, an airplane needed a bomb for kill an ords bunker, then there is a shred of hope in defending against a porking. If they can be engaged short of the field they might have to jettison their bombs. If they dive in and drop on one ords bunker the lower entry speed, the drag of the other bomb(s), and sharper pull out all mean significantly less E is retained to set up the drop on the second bunker. Less E means more chances for defenders to engage before the second drop. Then there is also the possibility of the attacker missing the bomb drop.

So a mandatory bomb hit to destroy an ammo bunker would improve game play by making it possible (but still hard) to defend against porking and increase the need for cooperative game play by attackers to bring down ammo bunkers (or decrease lone wolf attacks).

Thank you for your attention. Now I'm off to lone wolf pork all evening, as usual.

[bustr]

Since each field type is a capturable object to generate localized conflict. The concept of the destroyable parts to shut down the field are more of a micro reflection of the strats rather than authentic representations of each object type and how it could be destroyed during the real war.

Fuel is more representative of how this works because it can be 125, 100 and 75. So to hangers having (x) per field requiring (x) bombs each or to destroy the process that serves up your rides or ammo for your rides and so forth. Asking for more or less (x) bombs is simply asking for the field to take more or less resources, larger or smaller hoard, to capture it. You can effectively do the same thing by asking for a larger or smaller number of troops to enter the map room while keeping intact the current requirements to take down objects.

Getting Hitech to introduce more delay in the ability to take down a field will not effect players wanting to show up to defend it if they are having fun elsewhere. Most maps are large enough that fields being captured are ignorable.

If you want players to be interested in defense, it has to mean something to their fun. Reducing the numbers of fields needed to win the map would have more effect on their priorities. Or, show how little it matters to many. A map is a map and players will login to fight again. I suspect the concept of winning the map or the war may be getting old and something new has an opportunity here. Some kind of a new carrot.

[JimmyD3]

1. Increase the required amount of damage for the hangers from 3,000 lbs. to 4,000 lbs., the same as a shore battery.

2. Increase required amount of damage for the ammo bunkers to 1,000 lbs..

3. Increase the required amount of damage for the Cruiser to 4,000 lbs., keep the remaining "other" ships at 2,000 lbs.

Let the debate begin.

1. Increasing the damage required for Hangers goes beyond "taking down a building" and impacts your ability to defend or capture a base. As an example, while taking out the VH hanger structure is relative straight forward, the tactical impact on the base is significant. The ability of an F6F to take out a hanger structure maybe valid, the ability to totally eliminate GV's at the base is overkill, & in IMHO unrealistic.

Now that I think about it, maybe we need to add an additional VH hanger at all Air Bases and Ports. Of course the simplest thing to do would be increase the damage required.

2. Steel Reinforced concrete structure, penetrated by 50 cal. or 20 mm? Unrealistic.

3. Armor Plated Cruiser going down with the same amount of damage as a Destroyer? Not likely.

Again this is a wishlist, all these wishes would increase participation, increase the potential for more "fights", and provide a better level of realism in both attacks and defenses.

[earl1937]

1. Increasing the damage required for Hangers goes beyond "taking down a building" and impacts your ability to defend or capture a base. As an example, while taking out the VH hanger structure is relative straight forward, the tactical impact on the base is significant. The ability of an F6F to take out a hanger structure maybe valid, the ability to totally eliminate GV's at the base is overkill, & in IMHO unrealistic.

Now that I think about it, maybe we need to add an additional VH hanger at all Air Bases and Ports. Of course the simplest thing to do would be increase the damage required.

2. Steel Reinforced concrete structure, penetrated by 50 cal. or 20 mm? Unrealistic.

3. Armor Plated Cruiser going down with the same amount of damage as a Destroyer? Not likely.

Again this is a wishlist, all these wishes would increase participation, increase the potential for more "fights", and provide a better level of realism in both attacks and defenses.

I am glad someone else in this game has noticed those things to Jimmy! Has never made any sense that I could "kill" an ord bunker with .50 cal. There is no question that AH should consider making some adjustments to hangar, ord bunker and "hard gun emplacements", such as 88's. I doubt if a 88 gun pit should go down, same as a soft gun. Not sure the thinking behind that reasoning.

[LilMak]

I'm not a fan of hardening the hangars. It punishes the bomber guys. A am a fan of perking 1k bombs on fighters. I get tired of seeing missions that close bases and provide their own cap.

[Hap]

Not before you have stated why those changes and how they would improve the game 

[bustr]

The ammo bunker is easy to destroy because it is a representation of the potential to express force compounded with the representation of the logistics chain of the rebuild time and the strat health. Mighty important object....... Not as the real ww2 immensely hardened concrete blocks they were though.

Have you ever asked yourself why the conundrum of making them look like a harden bunker but, allowing them to be easily destroyed? If something so important to your ability to fight is so easy to destroy, then the obvious answer is, it's a localized by design strategic choke hold object. In a macrocosm you can see in yourselves here how the players of a country would respond to Hitech allowing a bomber driver with a one finger salute kill a country wide choke hold object. It would be by design to enable the rapid winning of the war because the furballing fools didn't want to pay attention to the real arbiters of the game, bombers and their godly one finger salutes. Otherwise, it's suicide weenies and their ability to mow down ord bunkers with BB's.

Instead of giving you strats that choke hold a whole country visa one bomber box. It's been distributed to every field capture object so fights euphemistically can't drag on forever(today's oxymoronically status quo of drag on's). They are easy to destroy by design. And by design you can individually or by group effect the logistics chain. Bomb the strat to increase the down time or resupply the strat to increase the rebuild time. Or drive an M3 several times to affect the local rebuild faster. I know, but we want to shoot people instead of worrying about logistics with our very limited time to play.

How much longer do you want to make fights stall out at a single point on maps? At some point you will be attacking a field to take it. And you would hear on range something like " why the dingdong did Hitech increase the hardness, we are going to be here until next week....what dang fools whined in the forums again".

M3 resupply helps defenders to bring ords back up and stall out fights.
1. - Do you want the number of delivery trips by an M3 increased along with hardening the ord bunker?
2. - Are you telling Hitech that defenders are suffering and need object affect requirements modified to favor defense and the effort required for capture?

You are asking for CM object settings to be changed to affect all player outcomes, besides your personal happiness. Is there really an imbalance at this micro level in the face of your abilities to defend or resupply?

[EskimoJoe]

Unrealistic?

Okay, let's harden the bunkers to a realistic level.

But you only get one life.

[guncrasher]

1. Increasing the damage required for Hangers goes beyond "taking down a building" and impacts your ability to defend or capture a base. As an example, while taking out the VH hanger structure is relative straight forward, the tactical impact on the base is significant. The ability of an F6F to take out a hanger structure maybe valid, the ability to totally eliminate GV's at the base is overkill, & in IMHO unrealistic.

Now that I think about it, maybe we need to add an additional VH hanger at all Air Bases and Ports. Of course the simplest thing to do would be increase the damage required.

2. Steel Reinforced concrete structure, penetrated by 50 cal. or 20 mm? Unrealistic.

3. Armor Plated Cruiser going down with the same amount of damage as a Destroyer? Not likely.

Again this is a wishlist, all these wishes would increase participation, increase the potential for more "fights", and provide a better level of realism in both attacks and defenses.

last I checked ords bunkers didnt have reinforced concrete and the cruiser wasnt armor plated anymore than a destroyer.  all they have is 1's and 0's to protect them.  if you dont believe me ask around.

objects need a certain about of "damage" before they are destroyed (except for 999's buffs which can absorb an unlimited amount of bullets ), and that can be a combination of bombs,rockets or bullets, once that amount is reached then the obj is "destroyed". 

the reason we have things the way they are is for the sake of game play.  hangars were very fragile in ww2 and yet in the game we require at least 2k of bombs to destroy it. I bet in rl a single 250 bomb can destroy a hangar if it hits the support wall or render unusable if it makes a crater right in front of the door. yet we dont have that in the game.

increasing the amount of damage for the ords bunkers or the fleet ships wont give you more fights and it wont encourage more people to defend them. and for sure wont increase the level of "realism" as many times it has been stated that it cannot be simulated.



semp

[doright]

...increasing the amount of damage for the ords bunkers or the fleet ships wont give you more fights and it wont encourage more people to defend them.

Think you need to check your logic. Having no ords because they been porked by a single player in an uber cannon plane along a line of multiple fields hardly encourages game play and fights. It in fact detracts from it and detracts from multi-front engagements.

I suggested a basic change where ammo bunkers are fully protected against damage from small caliber weapons and require bombs (or tank rounds) to damage them. The actual damage required for destruction can stay the same.

A coordinated effort to deprive an enemy of ordinance along a front will still be an effective strategy. The bomb damage requirement would make it much more difficult for it to be implemented on a single player's whim.

[guncrasher]

Think you need to check your logic. Having no ords because they been porked by a single player in an uber cannon plane along a line of multiple fields hardly encourages game play and fights. It in fact detracts from it and detracts from multi-front engagements.

I suggested a basic change where ammo bunkers are fully protected against damage from small caliber weapons and require bombs (or tank rounds) to damage them. The actual damage required for destruction can stay the same.

A coordinated effort to deprive an enemy of ordinance along a front will still be an effective strategy. The bomb damage requirement would make it much more difficult for it to be implemented on a single player's whim.

I have yet to see a furball dissolve because the ords or radar were down.  most fights dont revolve around ords unless players are trying to roll bases.  and if you are rolling bases it hardly encourages fights.


semp