ammo bunker blast radius

[Traveler]

I think he is looking to get the "strafers" killed if they are to low/close the the ammo bunkers when they blow. As it is, it is far too easy to kill ammo at a base these days. One guy in a D9 can run around and kill ammo at 3 bases by himself. Stopping them is very hard to to as they run very well and not many planes have the speed. It is a bit of an imbalance in the game.

Just another thing people have trained themselves to do to cut corners in the game.

How is a player attacking an ammo bunker, cutting corners in the game?
Perhaps his carrier is approaching and he’s defending against bombers attacks against his fleet or he’s stopping a horde from making follow up attack to finish off his town.  Cutting off the ability of the enemy to attack is how most wars are fought. 

exactly, just another way to "game the game". While most of us play a "war simulation" to a point... whether we furball or grab bases, or GV, far too many players are looking to cut the corners and avoid fighting to get to an "end game". The game use to be about fighting FOR that end game, now its just about getting there to win the war.

I think it still is, you got to fight your way in and out and do what is necessary to resupply to get ords or town up.

To be truthful, we are NOT at war, we ARE playing a game.
Whats the point of adding all the content the creators did if the purpose of the game is to avoid using it all? No, I think it was all meant to be used, as designed, to further enhance the "end game".
That is what I think we have lost as a community, and why I think the numbers continue to drop.

We are playing a game, a war simulation game of WWII using Air, Tanks and Ships.  An MMO first person shooter of capture the flag.  What is gaming the game is the lack of side loyalty.  You got to admit that side loyalty was a thing in the past, when we had 500 or more players in each arena.  As the boomers have move on or at least away from the game, leaving a lot of millennials, that to me are only interested in the here and now. 

[The Fugitive]

How is a player attacking an ammo bunker, cutting corners in the game?
Perhaps his carrier is approaching and he’s defending against bombers attacks against his fleet or he’s stopping a horde from making follow up attack to finish off his town.  Cutting off the ability of the enemy to attack is how most wars are fought.

The corner cutting is the strafing of the ammo bunkers with pretty much impunity. I've seen and chased guys that have strafed the ammo and a number of fields on a single flight. I think a more solid game play would be for say, a couple of hvy P38s come in with some alt and bomb the ammo bunkers and what ever else they can get and then fight their way out. I know of only two guys that are relentless while doing it   

 
I think it still is, you got to fight your way in and out and do what is necessary to resupply to get ords or town up.

You DO, most do not. They would rather game the game by straffing ammos at a number of bases and then bail to join in on the next horde run.

We are playing a game, a war simulation game of WWII using Air, Tanks and Ships.  An MMO first person shooter of capture the flag.  What is gaming the game is the lack of side loyalty.  You got to admit that side loyalty was a thing in the past, when we had 500 or more players in each arena.  As the boomers have move on or at least away from the game, leaving a lot of millennials, that to me are only interested in the here and now.

I dont think people stay in the game long enough any more to build the ties that drive "team" loyalty, "squad" loyalty. A few months of lawndarting FHs and suicide runs to win the war a few times and they get board and move on to something else. Of the top 12 squads only 2 have more than 20 active players this month,  couple have less than a dozen. I know your squad is decimated. There just isnt that "joining in" type of players coming in any more. Far too many FPS gamers where it blast away running around like a chicken on fire until dead, and repeat.

Those players come in and bend the game to that type of play ignoring the "meat" of the game. I dont know what the answer is, but if something isnt added/tweaked to help keep these players interested they are just going to continue to blow in and blow back out looking for something else.

[Ciaphas]

But the question still remains.

How is attaching an ammo but beer game my the game?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[100Coogn]

But the question still remains.

How is attaching an ammo but beer game my the game?

Well said Sir.   

Coogan

[Ciaphas]

Haha my bad, my phone has the redneck version of autocorrect on... .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Fugitive]

Haha my bad, my phone has the redneck version of autocorrect on... .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the regular New England translation of that post is......

[Ciaphas]

It’s quite simple.

The “end game” is defined by each individual playing this simulator. They dictate their own “end game”.

If a person wants to pork ords , fuel, troops so be it. If you are going to suggest that a penalty be levied against them for doing so then you must accept all of the penalties and not just those that affect the player doing something you don’t agree with.

To add collateral damage from the “explosion”, that WILL occur from an ordnance bunker cooking off, only to the one doing the porking is selfish and wrong as buildings in and around the area will be affected.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[popeye]

To add collateral damage from the “explosion”, that WILL occur from an ordnance bunker cooking off, only to the one doing the porking is selfish and wrong as buildings in and around the area will be affected.

I dropped 4400lbs (2X1000kg) of bombs on a small field ammo bunker and no other objects were destroyed.  (Maybe the ammo bunker "absorbed" all the damage?)

[Traveler]

It’s quite simple.

The “end game” is defined by each individual playing this simulator. They dictate their own “end game”.

If a person wants to pork ords , fuel, troops so be it. If you are going to suggest that a penalty be levied against them for doing so then you must accept all of the penalties and not just those that affect the player doing something you don’t agree with.

To add collateral damage from the “explosion”, that WILL occur from an ordnance bunker cooking off, only to the one doing the porking is selfish and wrong as buildings in and around the area will be affected.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The end game is defined by HTC.  Right now that is accomplished by winning the war.

[Ciaphas]

I dropped 4400lbs (2X1000kg) of bombs on a small field ammo bunker and no other objects were destroyed.  (Maybe the ammo bunker "absorbed" all the damage?)

That’s because the ammo bunker does not cook off any ordnance when porked. Had Dale declared the type of ord and the net explosive weight stored in each bunker. Your bombing run would have damaged many structures within but not limited to a 1000ft radius. That is providing that the rockets didn’t cook off, this would extend the damage zone well beyond 1000 ft.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[popeye]

That’s because the ammo bunker does not cook off any ordnance when porked. Had Dale declared the type of ord and the net explosive weight stored in each bunker. Your bombing run would have damaged many structures within but not limited to a 1000ft radius. That is providing that the rockets didn’t cook off, this would extend the damage zone well beyond 1000 ft.

According to the settings, the ammo bunker took the equivalent of 312 lbs. of bombs to destroy.  In my test, that left over 4000 lbs. of "destructive potential" that did not destroy any nearby objects, but might well have killed an attacker close enough to gun the bunker.  In fact, when I released 2x1000kg bombs low enough to gun the bunker, I was killed in the resulting explosion.

[Traveler]

According to the settings, the ammo bunker took the equivalent of 312 lbs. of bombs to destroy.  In my test, that left over 4000 lbs. of "destructive potential" that did not destroy any nearby objects, but might well have killed an attacker close enough to gun the bunker.  In fact, when I released 2x1000kg bombs low enough to gun the bunker, I was killed in the resulting explosion.

You may not have destroyed any other structures nearby, but did you damage them?  Each structure and target in the game has to suffer enough damage to the point of being destroyed, right?  That why I can hit a Fighter hanger with two 1000lb bombs and my wind man can hit it was 5 rockets and he gets the credit for Fighter Hanger Destroyed.  So the way that I have always understood the damage model is that it's cumulative on a target.  Depending on the weapon used and how close or far away it land from the target over time.   Each target damaged starts to repair over time.

[Ciaphas]

According to the settings, the ammo bunker took the equivalent of 312 lbs. of bombs to destroy.  In my test, that left over 4000 lbs. of "destructive potential" that did not destroy any nearby objects, but might well have killed an attacker close enough to gun the bunker.  In fact, when I released 2x1000kg bombs low enough to gun the bunker, I was killed in the resulting explosion.

Are you comprehending what I am saying?



What is being asked for is collateral damage to the guy porking the ords at low levels (strafing).

To implement something like this would require it be implemented across the board, not just for the guy strafing ords.

There are a couple of reasons why we will most likely not see a system like this implemented.

1. Punishes players for playing the game as intended.

2. Adding collateral damage based off of ordnance weights would, to some extent, make it easier to knock a base out with very minimal effort.

3. Would push this game towards a linear play style instead of the non-linear style that is currently seen.


To deal with the other “end game” statement made a few posts up:

The end game is what ever the player feels his end game is for that sortie.

If their goal is to knock out ords at base X for that particular sortie then that becomes his end game.

Sure Dale has the “map win” in use, I suspect that is to give us a means to rotate the maps and nothing more.

But then again that is just my perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Traveler]

Are you comprehending what I am saying?

From where I came into this wish I guess not.  The first post that I see is  this:

Maybe equivalent to 5000lbs. of bombs.  Seems like there should be some risk to strafing an ammo bunker.

With no proceeding Wish post.  Doesn't really tell me very much.

What is being asked for is collateral damage to the guy porking the ords at low levels (strafing).

To implement something like this would require it be implemented across the board, not just for the guy strafing ords.

If the game was a little more realistic I’d agree, however,  I tend to think of the Ammo Bunkers as only doorways to a vast underground arsenal  and what is destroyed is only the doorway access .  I mean, the Ammo bunkers couldn’t house all the machine gun and 37MM AA rounds needed to supply just the field guns alone, let alone provide storage for the ord  for just  5 sets of Bombers, right?

There are a couple of reasons why we will most likely not see a system like this implemented.
1.   Punishes players for playing the game as intended.

?

2.   Adding collateral damage based off of ordnance weights would, to some extent, make it easier to knock a base out with very minimal effort.

Or, require changes to base layout so like in real life, the ord bunkers is not standing next to buildings or fuel dumps.   I still think the bunker doorway is just an enterence.

3. Would push this game towards a linear play style instead of the non-linear style that is currently seen.

Ok, Sure.

To deal with the other “end game” statement made a few posts up:
The end game is what ever the player feels his end game is for that sortie.
If their goal is to knock out ords at base X for that particular sortie then that becomes his end game.
Sure Dale has the “map win” in use, I suspect that is to give us a means to rotate the maps and nothing more.
But then again that is just my perspective.

Here is another perspective take from the Aces High official website.
Under Game Objective.
Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the team objective in Aces High. The arena terrain is divided into three countries (Bishop, Knight, and Rook), with each country starting with an equal number of fields, towns, cities, task groups, factories, and a single headquarter for each country. All countries have an equal amount of territory at the beginning of a war.
Territory is gained by capturing fields. A field consists of an airfield, vehicle field or port, and an adjacent town. The town is normally situated 2-3 miles from the field or port and controls the ownership of the field.
When enough buildings in the town have been destroyed, a white surrender flag will be flown in the town center. While the white flag is flown, 10 troops must be delivered to the command bunker (a.ka. map room) via one of the troop carriers to capture the field. After the tenth troop safely makes it into the bunker, a system message will appear in the message buffer announcing the captured field number and the capturing country.
Oh and for the base  porker who’s goal is to knock out ords at base X, isn’t his end game Returning alive from his mission.  Would we be better served by a scoring system that only awarded point for a successful mission and if you die along the way, you lose any points gained?

[Ciaphas]

You have to win the battles to win a war, right?

If the bunker is a doorway to the military equivalent of Marry Poppins purse, what explosives are in the bunker that would cause damage to a strafer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk