Porking. Needs to be changed.

[guncrasher]

and I am so damn good at all of that you can take that to the bank.

except your bank cannot pay for your subscription.


semp

[guncrasher]

I wonder if there is any gun cam footage of a pilot strafing a row of 500 lb bombs during ww2. Or did the film go down with the plane? Just a curious thought. I don't think it would be a good idea to strafe an open bomb depot in real life.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

sorry waffle, but do you see any cam footage of a pilot getting shot down and up again withing 5 seconds  .



semp

[Oddball-CAF]

Airfield capture, in the game, is not meant to be a realistic portrayal. The ammo bunkers are basically game pieces. The damage requirements for hangers, houses, radio towers, etc. are set for arena game play rather than strict historical accuracy.

I buy into this only to a point; that point being that they're currently -not- properly tweaked.
I don't think anyone on the HTC staff actually plays AH to the extent necessary to develop a good
"feel" for what works and what doesn't. That's not their fault. They've got actual jobs to do at HTC.
  I think that there's a small cadre of people that have their ear/give 'em feedback and
those guys are feeding 'em bad scoop.

[Lazerr]

sure wish I could find a good furball these days... and yes, your bunker is soft. 

[save]

some maps promotes combat, some promotes undefended base takovers

[Randy1]

I do a lot of attack runs.   I do agree the ords are just too easy to take down.  Same for radar. 

Something as an example of 4-5 American rockets for each would help.

[Thor]

Why not just give them a hardness scaling similar to the hangars? (not the same mind you) Keep it like some suggested, couple rockets or bombs minimum. Keep the 190D9-La7-N1K-strafe-and-ditchers at bay.

Just a thought.

[Changeup]

Consistent answers to questions may seem novel but there is a sense to it.

Just because answers are consistent doesn't make them right.  That IS novel.

[FLS]

Just because answers are consistent doesn't make them right.  That IS novel.

In this case it likely means the whines passing for arguments aren't persuasive.

[Changeup]

Because they've made many, many decisions on what to include and what not to.  It's resulted in a mixture that's pretty much unique compared to the competition.  It's the same as the engine management argument.  They chose specifically not to model that.

Everybody's 'realism' wishlist looks different.  I don't particularly want engine management, but if it were included as long as the rest of the gameplay was still fun, I'd adjust.

I'd like to see the air act more like a fluid than the perfect stillness you get now, wind shears, updrafts over warm areas, wind hitting a hill and providing an updraft, turbulence, all that good stuff.  A lot of people would dislike that for a lot of similar reasons to why I am not fond of engine management.

They made their choices on how to set it up.  I don't think the ammos being strafable is that awful, but I can appreciate why it would bug other people.  I think it's an upside that they can be taken down by a light aircraft because honestly not that many people carry ords when they attack a base, and it allows the light fighters to help.  The harder you make bombing, it will only slow people down even more and make the hordes bigger.

Wiley.

It's funny you chose engine management.  That's not necessarily part of the game of base capture and would offer zero to the player regarding damaging an ammo dump.  Engine management could be toggled on/off just like combat trim or stall limiter.  I bet it would be a squeak to code though. Realistic ground target hardness prolly would not be hard to change but WOULD offer a little step closer to realism.

[Changeup]

See rule4

[flatiron1]

It only takes blowing up one bomb to blow up a bunch more.

[Guppy35]

and I am so damn good at all of that you can take that to the bank.

What scares me Wizz is that if you are an example of the future of Aces High, it doesn't have one...

[FLS]

Or the responder is a simpleton sheep who chooses to follow others answers.  That's not particularly persuasive either.

You are free to dream.

When you have a game play issue you want to make a game play argument. When you can only make a historical argument it implies that you lack a good game play reason to change a game play decision.

[Changeup]

See rule 4