Radar damage should be raised to 2k.

[save]

I do not know about you guys, but I can strafe down a radar with one pass in an 190a8 at 400mph.

They should be much harder to kill , like 2k worth, both attack planes and bombers should be effective, but hey, strafing a metal structure standing on a concrete structure.. no way.

[Mitchell]

I think only rockets or bombs should be able to destroy them, same for ammo bunkers. If that is possible to do?

[bozon]

Bunkers and radar were made 6 times harder to kill in the 12 hours scenario we just had. Worked great!
I highly suggest we adopt this in the MA.

+1

[MWL]

Fair assessment.

[FLOOB]

You want to make a tin shack full of radio equipment magically impervious to bullets? This isn't World of Warcraft.

[macleod01]

You want to make a tin shack full of radio equipment magically impervious to bullets? This isn't World of Warcraft.

No, he wants to make a hollow metal structure not attract bullets like a magnet.

In the Battle of Britain, how long was a RDF station down for? Maximum of two days? The reason being that the 'tin shack' was easily replaced. It was the antenna that was the hard thing to destroy. Neither Level bombers nor Stukas could take them out for long periods of time. Where as here, you can disable radar by a strafing run. Historically accurate? Not in the least. I understand concessions for the game, however hardening the radar seems to be a fair compromise.

[Interceptor]

During WWII English radars (same model than game ones mostly) were a pain for Luftwaffe to destroy :
unlike buildings, the bombs blast didn't deal extreme damage,
needless to mention strafing tower was almost useless, even with planes cannons.

In this simulation, a strafing plane should not be able to knock it down within 3 seconds, by simple strafe, as it happens now: that's for sure : it's unrealistic and annoying...

[kvuo75]

if it werent for radar and ords being so easy to kill, a good percentage of the people in the game wouldn't have any other reason to feel effective.

i think its actually part of the natural progression..  it goes bomber pilot -> ord/radar hero -> gv bomb**** -> vulcher -> veteran acm expert.


 

[save]

2*1000lb would fix that ineffectiveness bug some players may or may not have.
 

[FBKampfer]

I take the radar tower to be representative of the whole system. Smash up vacuum tube, and display screens, and the thing stops being useful, even if it's still emitting and receiving a signal.

[FLOOB]

No, he wants to make a hollow metal structure not attract bullets like a magnet.

How? By making it magically bullet proof? The LW had trouble destroying remote radar antenna, not the stations. In game the antenna is not easy to hit, that's why everyone aims for the power shack.

[FLOOB]

I take the radar tower to be representative of the whole system.

Yes. Just like every other strat object including hangars, they are symbolic.

[macleod01]

How? By making it magically bullet proof? The LW had trouble destroying remote radar antenna, not the stations. In game the antenna is not easy to hit, that's why everyone aims for the power shack.

Yes it is symbolic and yes it is the hut that contains the equipment. But how long were any of the RDF stations down for during the Battle of Britain? It was never long. So that should be reflected.

[FLOOB]

15 minutes in game vs 48 hours or more in real life. And you contend that making that gap wider would better reflect real world conditions?

[macleod01]

No, what I am contending is that in game taking out RDF stations (Or radar) is comparatively easy. In real life it was hard to take these stations out.

By hardening the Radar, it will be more in keeping with it being hard to take out. I do not wish to increase or decrease the downtime of radar. I don't think that will solve anything. however by making it harder to take out, it will promote more of a challenge, make it more historically accurate and give defenders a greater chance by increasing the chances of discovery of a raid.