Ordnance Change

[Zacherof]

No, since it was very common for fighters to take more than 1,000 pounds of ordnance for attack missions.   Instead of limiting what a player can take, give the player more ordnance options than what we currently have.  For example, give the option for the B-25H to take HVAR rockets.  

ack-ack

Yesssssss

[BowHTR]

I would like to see a perked ordnance system where anything over 1,000lbs on a fighter is perked. To go along with this I would like to see hanger damage reduced to 1,000lbs. I think this would allow more people to fly a greater variety of aircraft. This would allow aircraft in the British and Japanese lineup to be used in the attack role, something you rarely see. The hangars should then be impervious to gunfire, to keep 110s and such from strafing down a field. The bombsights would also need to be made less accurate as well, to keep single sets of bombs wiping out a field.

If it would only take 1000lbs to drop a hanger you would probably see the amount of ords that planes could carry go down. Just like if goons were to carry more than 10 troops, it would take more than 10 troops to capture a base.

[guncrasher]

I would like to see a perked ordnance system where anything over 1,000lbs on a fighter is perked. To go along with this I would like to see hanger damage reduced to 1,000lbs. I think this would allow more people to fly a greater variety of aircraft. This would allow aircraft in the British and Japanese lineup to be used in the attack role, something you rarely see. The hangars should then be impervious to gunfire, to keep 110s and such from strafing down a field. The bombsights would also need to be made less accurate as well, to keep single sets of bombs wiping out a field.

cool, I'll take 2 500 lbs bombs and kill a hangar in my ponyd.  but you still wont make me fly any other aircraft.


semp

[xPoisonx]

cool, I'll take 2 500 lbs bombs and kill a hangar in my ponyd.  but you still wont make me fly any other aircraft.


semp

 

[tuton25]

cool, I'll take 2 500 lbs bombs and kill a hangar in my ponyd.  but you still wont make me fly any other aircraft.


semp

That's the point. It would be nice to widen the aircraft available for a specific role, giving us more variety....

[bustr]

Then you would have to ask HiTech to nerf late war rides down equal to early and midwar rides in performance. Or get rid of them so midwar rides become the performance monsters.

This is the same kind of wishful thinking that boys can be manipulated to be girls to make life fair for girls.

After the bombs are dropped the player is stuck in a dog ride. Even the little sqweeker boys who play this game know that.

[tuton25]

Then you would have to ask HiTech to nerf late war rides down equal to early and midwar rides in performance. Or get rid of them so midwar rides become the performance monsters.

This is the same kind of wishful thinking that boys can be manipulated to be girls to make life fair for girls.

After the bombs are dropped the player is stuck in a dog ride. Even the little sqweeker boys who play this game know that.

Why would he need to nerf the late war rides???
Just limit the amount of ords they can carry

[Zoney]

To the OP:



NO!



Find something that adds to the game not takes away.

[bangsbox]

What about making a few specific targets way more friendly to armor piercing bombs and far less friendly to regular he bombs? 

I like this Idea. Perhaps, making 1 or more of the hangers require AP bombs to destroy it. I also like this idea for the CV and CA, we could still have reg bombs kill all the guns on the CV and CA except the 8inchers (armored turret like that are not going to be hurt by reg bombs).

[bustr]

That's the point. It would be nice to widen the aircraft available for a specific role, giving us more variety....

Then....

Why would he need to nerf the late war rides???
Just limit the amount of ords they can carry
-----------------------------------------------------

Giving WHO more variety?? You are asking HiTech to pick winners and loosers which as Zoney pointed out is asking HiTech to take away from the game.

The aircraft are available but, very few players want to use them because they don't want to choose to be less competitive.

Your arguments sound socially just and wonderful. But, social justice always requires a power to force people to not act in their own best interests. It requires a power to take away from people to force equality.

Giving who more variety? The players have already decided, and fly their decisions, which you want HiTech to force them to go against.

In the end, you don't like how other customers are leveraging a part of the game. So you are asking HiTech to take something away from them to force them to stop playing the game that way.

Not as socially just and wonderful sounding as your original arguments.

[Randy1]

Do away with 1000# bombs on fighters, do away with formation bomber sets of three then lower pounds of fighter ords to kill a hanger to two 500 pounders and six rockets.  Set ammo and 88s to 500#s each.

[FLS]

The heavy fighters pay a price for their range and payload. Take that advantage away and some people would still fly them but they would no longer be needed for anything.

[guncrasher]

That's the point. It would be nice to widen the aircraft available for a specific role, giving us more variety....

people arent going to use different aircraft just because it now takes less ords to kill a hangar.  they are just gonna keep flying the same and now make it easier to destroy hangars.

semp

[Tilt]

I would like to see ordinance perked.... Or more precisely aircraft perked when heavy ordinance is taken.

However I would like the currency of perks more free flowing throughout the game.

E.g if  #perks are risked due to a load out then # perks are earned when that load out causes its full potential of damage.

one rule of thumb would be to make the total bomb load perk age proportional to the total load weight divided by the number of engines.

[Randy1]

OP is one of your objectives to protect GVs?