Request for 1.09: Bring back crater damage

[pbirmingham]

Originally posted by LePaul:
As the site says, the game is a strat game.  Take out fuels, hangars and the list goes on.  A flat, smooth runway is a huge asset for any team.  If its cratered like the moon, nothing can get in our out.

We're not "trying to ruin your fun"...this isn't a Quake game where you magically re-up in the middle of the battle are charged up.  You pick your plane, fuel load, climb accordingly, etc etc.  

Thanks for the primer, Mister Ace.  This explains why I couldn't find the Quad, and why the player models all looked so, well, funny.

Oh, and.. "it's."

Seriously, though, what you're saying is, "I think it's just too darn hard to shut down an airfield.  It should be easier to shut down fields."  'splain to me precisely whose enjoyment would be increased by this, and why it wouldn't be increased even *more* by making them fly 500 miles to target before they get to crater these runways, and forcing them to scrub every other mission because the weather's too bad?

I'm not trying to spoil your fun here, just crankin' up the verisimilitude, dude!

Runy ^Skull^

[LePaul]

Hmm, figured it wouldnt be long before someone got pissy and turn an intelligent conversation into a flame-fest

But this is the BBS after all. <Puts on flame retardant suit>

As stated earlier, we aren't looking for an easier way to close a field.  We're seeking realism in the effects of the bomb blast.  I'll pass on your little jabs and just stick to the topic.

You don't find it unrealistic or just plain silly that vehicles can drive through a 1,000 pound bomb crater and full speed and not even the fuzzy dice on the mirror sway?  Or, if a runway was bombed, that heavy Lancasters or anything for that matter sail through the crater as if it was fog?

Don't want runways damaged?  Then defend the base.  You've got AWACS-like radar and numerous aircraft that can whup a buff easily.

[Am0n]

lol

We thought it was bad with the trees at the end of the runways killing people me262s, crater damage could get ugly because in a lot of the AC you cannot see the RW there for you wouldnt always know if it was damaged..

Ouch  

(what am i thinking, if this could possibly kill a 262 lets get this idea in the works already!  )

[Troll]

Originally posted by LePaul:

You don't find it unrealistic or just plain silly that vehicles can drive through a 1,000 pound bomb crater and full speed and not even the fuzzy dice on the mirror sway?  Or, if a runway was bombed, that heavy Lancasters or anything for that matter sail through the crater as if it was fog?

Don't want runways damaged?  Then defend the base.  You've got AWACS-like radar and numerous aircraft that can whup a buff easily.

No more unrealistic or silly than being able to place that crater anywhere you want it from 40K. There's a lot more changes that should happen before crater effects become anything more than another silly aspect of the bombers in AH.

But I do agree that bomb craters are needed, just not with the current or anything close to the current bomb modeling.

Troll

[pbirmingham]

Originally posted by LePaul:
Hmm, figured it wouldnt be long before someone got pissy and turn an intelligent conversation into a flame-fest

But this is the BBS after all. <Puts on flame retardant suit>

As stated earlier, we aren't looking for an easier way to close a field.  We're seeking realism in the effects of the bomb blast.  I'll pass on your little jabs and just stick to the topic.

You don't find it unrealistic or just plain silly that vehicles can drive through a 1,000 pound bomb crater and full speed and not even the fuzzy dice on the mirror sway?  Or, if a runway was bombed, that heavy Lancasters or anything for that matter sail through the crater as if it was fog?

Don't want runways damaged?  Then defend the base.  You've got AWACS-like radar and numerous aircraft that can whup a buff easily.

Dude, take that suit off -- we couldn't toast a marshmallow with these "flames."  I thought I was well within the spirit of your "this isn't Quake" comment (I paraphrase.) I thought you were condescending and pedantic, but maybe I have misread you.  If so, please accept my apology.

Anyway, I agree that it is not terribly realistic to have planes and vehicles rolling through bomb craters. My point is that it is also unrealistic to have bombers flying twenty-five miles and dumping their bomb loads, when the real trip was much longer. In both cases, though, one must ask -- would the game be more enjoyable if these aspects were made more realistic?  For me, the answer is no.

I accept that you're more interested in making bomb damage realistic, but not everybody will see it that way.  See that lone milkrunner, flying down the east side of the map?  He's no longer a nuisance -- he's now able to effectively close a field.  You can say "defend it" all you want, but the more seriously you have to take these guys, the more you have to disperse, and the more you become vulnerable to the guy in the Mossie skimming along at treetop level.  There were only two single-plane raids of any consequence in the war, and I don't see HiTech modelling Fat Man and Little Boy anytime soon.

So, in summary -- I don't think your idea is stupid or anything.  I just think that the secondary effects would make the game less enjoyable to me.  And in that, I think my wishes count no less than yours.

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Runny ^Skull^:


Dude, take that suit off -- we couldn't toast a marshmallow with these "flames."  I thought I was well within the spirit of your "this isn't Quake" comment (I paraphrase.) I thought you were condescending and pedantic, but maybe I have misread you.  If so, please accept my apology.

Anyway, I agree that it is not terribly realistic to have planes and vehicles rolling through bomb craters. My point is that it is also unrealistic to have bombers flying twenty-five miles and dumping their bomb loads, when the real trip was much longer. In both cases, though, one must ask -- would the game be more enjoyable if these aspects were made more realistic?  For me, the answer is no.

I accept that you're more interested in making bomb damage realistic, but not everybody will see it that way.  See that lone milkrunner, flying down the east side of the map?  He's no longer a nuisance -- he's now able to effectively close a field.  You can say "defend it" all you want, but the more seriously you have to take these guys, the more you have to disperse, and the more you become vulnerable to the guy in the Mossie skimming along at treetop level.  There were only two single-plane raids of any consequence in the war, and I don't see HiTech modelling Fat Man and Little Boy anytime soon.

So, in summary -- I don't think your idea is stupid or anything.  I just think that the secondary effects would make the game less enjoyable to me.  And in that, I think my wishes count no less than yours.

LOL, just jesting....don't get me wrong, text is hard to make emotions out of...

But please, the buffs ARE flying more than 25 miles to get to target...at least this buff driver is.  Im climbing for quite some time (no, not 40k...I generally fly at 15k to 20k).  So, please don't sway into the "buffs are bad" campaign that folks like Laz spit out.  

[pbirmingham]

Originally posted by LePaul:


LOL, just jesting....don't get me wrong, text is hard to make emotions out of...

But please, the buffs ARE flying more than 25 miles to get to target...at least this buff driver is.  Im climbing for quite some time (no, not 40k...I generally fly at 15k to 20k).  So, please don't sway into the "buffs are bad" campaign that folks like Laz spit out.    

No, buffs are good... targets.  

Seriously, they do provide motivation to get my fight on.  I have concerns about making them too powerful, though.  My personal preference would have a single buff able to do serious, but non-fatal, damage to a single field.  That way the lone milkrunner isn't totally ignorable, but doesn't present an emegency.  I think allowing a single plane to shut down all the runways on a field would go a little too far the other way.  That's all.

I think the proper balance will be struck when everybody thinks their favorite class of ride is discriminated against.

[jarbo]

I would like to see the Crater model reintroduced, with craters lasting for approx 3 minutes.  5 minutes would be a bit long for gameplay.

Jarbo

[Kodiak2]

Originally posted by Greg 'wmutt' Cook:

And for those of you who think hitting a sheep on takeoff would not do much:  While in the Army, our unit was deploying to Japan for a training excerise out of Honolulu.  On takeoff, our chartered 747-200 struck a single goose dead on the nose cone.  Not only could we clearly hear it throughout the plane, but when we landed in Guam for repairs, the whole tip of the plane was caved in so that a 6 foot man would have no trouble standing upright in the dent.
So while our ground vehicles would have no problem makeing short work of the livestock.  They should pose a grave threat to planes.

Got any pictures of this supposed 6 foot dent?  When did it happen and what airline was it?  You see, I build that section of the 747 (designated the 41 section)for Boeing and I find it VERY hard to swallow.  Assuming the nose tip was made of aluminum (the current model -400 nose tip is made of composite I believe), a 6 foot dent would mean that the nose had to be pushed all the way back to the forward pressure bulkhead because that is about what the diameter of the bulkhead is.  People would have had a radar dish and god knows what else pushed back through their skulls and out their butts.  Not only would such damage be catastrophic, but the resulting change in aerodynamics would have had the pilot's sphincter puckering back into his throat.  Any sane pilot, not to mention any one that did not want to be severely busted by the FAA, would have IMMEDIATELY turned around for an emergency landing from the same takeoff point.  Sorry man, but I think you're full of bologne.  

 

[lazs1]

everything about bombing is silly.   Why pick on one feature?
lazs

[LePaul]

Somewhat off topic...I found this on Google about the Daisy Cutter Bomb...love to see the Lanc carry the 20k equivalent it had in WW2...
 http://hometown.aol.com/old16inf/cas.html

Amazing pics....

[Aiswulf]

Hey LePAul that link doesn't send me anywhere  

Awulf

[LePaul]

My error

Try this
 http://hometown.aol.com/old16inf/CAS.html

[DanielMcIntyre]

Yeah GrandSlam bomb would be great.  Lancs were specially modified thou, have to be a perk lanc.