Defendable Ammo Bunkers

[doright]

Had a hard time pushing the "new topic" button, but I wanted to make clear that this is a wishlist item.

I propose that ammo bunkers by made defendable against the unbalancing onslaught of lone a lone cannon or missile uber plane.

One option is to make ammo bunkers only prone to damage from bombs at all times.

Another option is to allow dropping field supplies to harden intact ammo bunkers for 60 minutes. Hardened bunkers would only be damaged by bombs.

[Lab Rat 3947]

One option is to make ammo bunkers only prone to damage from bombs at all times

Small base = 100 lb bomb
Medium base = 250 lb. bomb
Large base = 500 LB bomb

like that 

sounds OK to me 


LtngRydr

[Lucifer]

Good idea, calling actual ice cream houses "bunkers" is a joke : a single guy in a lala can waste 50ppl fun atm, and without skills(neither a bomb!): stOOpid.

Had a hard time pushing the "new topic" button, but I wanted to make clear that this is a wishlist item.

I propose that ammo bunkers by made defendable against the unbalancing onslaught of lone a lone cannon or missile uber plane.

One option is to make ammo bunkers only prone to damage from bombs at all times.

Another option is to allow dropping field supplies to harden intact ammo bunkers for 60 minutes. Hardened bunkers would only be damaged by bombs.

[Chalenge]

Real defense is not possible without a great offense and you cannot defend the bunkers from your own AAA umbrella. What you are really complaining about is the way the bunkers are created in AH, because if they looked like 1,000 bombs of every description and ammo in crates you would understand better how they are destroyed so easy. Also, it's a game dynamic, so the softness of the asset is matched to the offensive capabilities of the attacking aircraft. Asking for stronger bunkers is also requesting more powerful attacking aircraft, which cannot happen since we already have some of the best WWII aircraft there were.

[bustr]

Put it on the M3 resupply schedule.

Then after all ammo bunkers are down, M3 can drop ord loads on the field or choose field supply's instead to deliver. Hitech since last August, has never told any of us in the alpha what his strat functionality plans are for the new game. We essentially received our marching orders and looked for bugs. I have no clue if this idea is possible as part of the strat system.

Has anyone considered waiting to see what AH3 will really be? The new functions we have been testing leave some obvious Imagineering to how much the game has been scaled to allow new functionality. The open alpha's Steal the Sheep and Steal the Flag arenas show a level of independent function I believe AH2 does not have.

[Aspen]

Bunker hardness, down times, troops required, auto ack effectiveness, ect, ect all work together to create the recipe for how the flow of taking and losing real estate goes.  Obviously the "bunker" seems more like a canvas tent on the hardness scale, but changing one part of the dynamic may shift the whole recipe on way or the other.  With the new version coming out,  I doubt much tweaking will be done on the current object hardness.

But, the point is well taken that the goal should be to get the whole recipe working at a good balance while the individual targets have a believable and reasonable hardness level.

I expect that there will be much tweaking to find that balance when the new version goes full release and maps get played with higher numbers.

That said, Doright rocks so +1   

[Chalenge]

. . . The open alpha's Steal the Sheep and Steal the Flag arenas show a level of independent function I believe AH2 does not have.

It's too early to form an opinion considering that it is still an alpha product, but the new changes don't feel like WWII very much. There are three traits (maybe four) that draw people to AH: MMPOG, WWII, flying, and tanks. My intuition is that should too many of these areas decline (fewer players, less WWII, simplified flight, or reduced armor accuracy) that the user base will also decline further. Only time will tell, but it looks like HiTech is doing everything he can to keep our favorite game going.

[SlipKnt]

While it drives me nuts to see a plane come in and knock the ord down in one cannon pass, then fly out and have energy and no damage from the run, it is part of the game.

Even if you make it harder to attack, they will still be attacked. 

I attack in a heavy F6F.  I can usually line up the 2 bunkers and get a bomb on each one and use the rockets to begin de-acking a town or even the field...

The one thing I think would work is to simply turn up the auto ack slightly.  Make it a touch more of a challenge to fly around effortlessly over a field seemingly not getting any damage.  Possibly add a bunker to a small field to challenge the porker by being forced to make a minimum of two passes

I would ask to make:

Small field x3 bunkers
Medium field x4 bunkers
Large field x 6 bunkers

Then simply turn the auto ack up about .5 to a .7 from what it is now?

It won't stop the porking but it will make it a touch more challenging while not taking away the thrill of porking.  Eventually, when a base starts flashing, someone has to get up there to defend.  I understand upping and merging only for that plane to make a single pass before you catch them and knocking down your ord.  It is frustrating...

 

[Zoney]

A fine suggestion sir 

The unintended consequences would also make it easier to hide in the ack if you were so inclined in an aircraft.

[SlipKnt]

Zoney - You are right about the unintended consequences.  But it would help some to climb out in their own ack to avoid getting picked off also.

Maybe a glass half full vs. half empty??? 

 

[Randy1]

A fine suggestion sir 

The unintended consequences would also make it easier to hide in the ack if you were so inclined in an aircraft.

What's wrong with hiding in the ack?   Most vox statements in the game like your post comes when the poor bastard is outnumbered trying to survive in the ack shield best he or she can.

[Zoney]

What's wrong with hiding in the ack?   Most vox statements in the game like your post comes when the poor bastard is outnumbered trying to survive in the ack shield best he or she can.

You have made an incorrect assumption sir.  I pointed out the unintended consequences without stating my opinion on them being good, or evil.  I happen to actually like his suggestion and agree with it, but for the purposes of discussion I stated what I did.

Personally, I will run to the ack and I will break off if some else runs to their ack.

[Wiley]

What's wrong with hiding in the ack?   Most vox statements in the game like your post comes when the poor bastard is outnumbered trying to survive in the ack shield best he or she can.

There is also a good number of people who appear to use the ack as their first line of defense against co-alt opponents of even numbers.

Not a huge fan of that use of the ack umbrella, but it does help people when the other side has numbers and is just vulching.

As to the defendable ack bunkers, I'm assuming it's desired gameplay by HTC since it's been that way forever, but having thought about it a bit my personal preference would be for them to require ord to take down rather than strafing, I think.

Wiley.

[The Fugitive]

I don't think strafing the target is suppose to be part of the game.

http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/levelbombing/levelbombing.htm

Viewing the above link you can see that the radar, fuel, ammo, and barracks all take "1 250 lb bomb" not "a single pass with a cannon equipped bird".

The runs with guns came about by player looking to cut corners. X amount of rounds = the same as a 250 lb bomb. Its a computer game so math works. However, was that the intended "play" the designer was looking for?

I don't think so.

[Wiley]

I don't think strafing the target is suppose to be part of the game.

http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/levelbombing/levelbombing.htm

Viewing the above link you can see that the radar, fuel, ammo, and barracks all take "1 250 lb bomb" not "a single pass with a cannon equipped bird".

The runs with guns came about by player looking to cut corners. X amount of rounds = the same as a 250 lb bomb. Its a computer game so math works. However, was that the intended "play" the designer was looking for?

I don't think so.

Considering it's been that way from day one, you'd think if HTC had a problem with it they might've changed it by now.  Maybe not 'intended' per se, but obviously not considered an issue.

Wiley.