Porking ords

[pallero]

And when you take down ord bunkers, they should explode like ten 4000 lbs cookies, and if you are 500 yards or closer in that moment you should loose your wings.

This is how should ammobunkers explode when you hit it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CiAr0ulR18

[Rich46yo]

Most who go for ammo bunkers are carrying 1000lbers.  If you are talking CV only planes the F4Us and TBM can carry 2k+ easy.

Not making the ammo bunkers more realistic because you want to prolong a CV battle isn't fair in my book.  I am a CV battle person, I really like those fights, but keeping the bunkers weak as they are now isn't right.  Players take multiple shore batteries out (that directly damage the fleet) and still are able to prolong the battle and sometimes even capture the base.

Plus, the amount of ordinance/damage required to destroy an ammo bunker doesn't directly impact the damage done to the fleet, the accuracy of the bomber is.  

Not just that but GV'ers also deserve a realistic chance of attacking an airbase with success. AND doing so with their perked tanks.

-1 on doing anything to the ords. Gotta a problem with them being down then run a resupply.

[pallero]

Not just that but GV'ers also deserve a realistic chance of attacking an airbase with success. AND doing so with their perked tanks.

-1 on doing anything to the ords. Gotta a problem with them being down then run a resupply.

You can allways call some flakers with you to attack to an airbase with your perked tank.

Its not realistic that one plane can drive lets say 4 to 5 frontline bases and porking ords from them.
Resupplying take too long time, and need many drivers.
Or then ords should be down max. 15 min. like vh.

[caldera]

Not just that but GV'ers also deserve a realistic chance of attacking an airbase with success. AND doing so with their perked tanks.

A realistic chance is probably about 1%.  An operational airfield would decimate a tank assault long before they got within sight of it.

[Rich46yo]

A realistic chance is probably about 1%.  An operational airfield would decimate a tank assault long before they got within sight of it.

Not with an organized assault after ords have been whacked. The problem is we dont have big organized GV assaults like we used to. Pity, they were fun.

[fbabob]

  I have been very fond of bring fuel back to the original settings.  25% per bunker 

[SmokinLoon]

I have been very fond of bring fuel back to the original settings.  25% per bunker 

I agree. But start the % at 150 with a max damage of 50% allowable fuel.  Meaning, it takes two ord bunkers to get to restrict drop tanks, three ord bunkers = 75% max, and four fuel tanks destroyed = 50% max.

Or, if HTC could code it so that it took all of the fuel tanks to be destroyed on each field to reach 50% max allowed fuel then that would be even better.  That would let the larger field have their due.

[bozon]

Or, if HTC could code it so that it took all of the fuel tanks to be destroyed on each field to reach 50% max allowed fuel then that would be even better.  That would let the larger field have their due.

lol, please do.
Makes no difference to my mossie - I never take more than 50%, which gives over 30 minutes of flight. P51s will manage as well. On the other hand, the Yaks and La7s will barely be able to complete a full circuit of their own base.. 

We had this before. It was not good. Fuel porking was eliminated for a reason.

[Chris79]

Maybe it ought to be when fuel tanks are porked it ought to limit the aggregate volume of fuel carried instead of percentage. So by porking fuel you would restrict buffs and other AC that require more fuel

[SmokinLoon]

lol, please do.
Makes no difference to my mossie - I never take more than 50%, which gives over 30 minutes of flight. P51s will manage as well. On the other hand, the Yaks and La7s will barely be able to complete a full circuit of their own base.. 

We had this before. It was not good. Fuel porking was eliminated for a reason.

Actually, if you pay attention to your beloved Mossi FB Mk IV like I do, you'll notice that you get 35 mins of flight when you wheels up and then it actually stretches a bit longer.  So you're exactly right, %50 wont do a thing to a typical mission for a Mossi.  However, that P51 you just mentioned won't be doing any long range escort duty from that airfield.  With fuel restricted to 50%, each and every plane is STILL available, but the choices need to be picked through a bit more because of the restricted range.  Base defense is still a viable option for everything, and attacks/dogfights between fields 25 miles apart are still an option as well.  Just watch the E6B close.  BTW, the Yak 9U has a longer range than you think.  At 100% it gets 27 mins, but it stretches out when it gets higher and the throttle is managed (doh!, now there is a concept to learn, eh?).

Point being, when fuel is an issue then players need to think twice.  When fuel is an after thought... who cares?

[bozon]

Actually, if you pay attention to your beloved Mossi FB Mk IV like I do, you'll notice that you get 35 mins of flight when you wheels up and then it actually stretches a bit longer.

Don't worry, I know my mossie VI very well. The WEP consumes nearly twice the fuel than at  MIL power. Given that you will be using about 5 minutes of WEP, possibly even a minute or two longer if used intermittently (cooling), you'll end up at about 30 min effective sortie time. In practive, I'll still be landing with a few more lbs of fuel in the tanks due to RPM/throttle management when loitering, and during the RTB trip.

Point being, when fuel is an issue then players need to think twice.  When fuel is an after thought... who cares?

This is why we have such a high fuel burn multiplier (FBM). Given the ease of bombing the fuel depots in a base from 20k with laser guided bombs, or even strafing planes, in AH1 we often had the fuel porked across entire fronts. Look at the clipboard map at all the fields with a red dar ring around them. All these bases will be at minimum fuel. If fuel porking is to be reintroduced, the FBM will have to come down. I prefer the current situation.

[EagleDNY]

Most who go for ammo bunkers are carrying 1000lbers. 

I see plenty of people just strafe them down in a suicidal LA-7 or Mossie.   IMHO .50 cal and 20mm should have little effect on a hardened bunker.