M3 troop carrier

[empty]

So long as we care to toss this discussion into the realm of realism...do you suppose that 10-guys can really take control of a base with a barracks full of troops less than 1-mile off at the airfield?  Maybe if they had an embedded reporter and the defenders happened to be the Iraqi 51st Division...

[Tilt]

It would be neat if the M3/ C47/ LVT 2 damage model included  its payload.

I also like the idea of upping base capture to require at least two of any of the above to implement a capture ( ie more than 10 troops) its a very simple arena setting to do this.

[empty]

Requiring more troops to capture would be a plus.

How about allowing troops to destroy buildings, say 2 for 1.  They'd hit any remaining structures prior to entering the map room.  Of course you loose the 2-troops that destroyed the building...

Might be good if the barracks at the base was a requirement for capture...

It would be good to slow down the attack, in addition to making the original capture more difficult...

[Tilt]

Originally posted by empty
Might be good if the barracks at the base was a requirement for capture...
 

I like this too........... it would certainly slow the land grab whilst still making it a game focus...............

Infact it seems to me that a requirement  for the destruction of a towns/fields defending troops (barracks) is more sort of RL than the obliteration of  every building in the town its self. Hence making towns bigger by adding garrisons of barracks and making the field and town barracks an additional requirement.....


oops thread hijack

[SixxGunn]

In the real world yes your P51B would have made swiss cheese out of the m3.

But also in the real world Base captures required alot of inf ground work to pull off. AH simulates a very small portion of the total arms concept that WWII was all about. Also remember that theres no cover for GVs to hide in. They stick out in the barren wastelands now which is not realistic.

The M3 would not have been alone and it has the ability to dismount its troops and they can seek cover during an air attack.
If I get killed by a lone M3 I simulate to myself that one of the other anti-air vehicles that would have been part of that 30+ convoy in RL shot me down.

Sometimes a fine line between RL and game play has to be imposed. To make game play fun for all in the air and on the ground.

In real life, then and even today an air only campaign can not take and hold ground. Ground troops have to hold what is taken.

But in our little virtual world the air campaign can move the map and hold ground on its own.

I think the ground vehicles are modeled well for the role they play in game.

I to would like to see base captures increase in difficulty some what. But then I also think that bases should have more ack, both mannable, AI controled, and different types and multiple GV spawns at bases.

At least in this sim tanks dont sit on top of mountains near bomber bases and score one hit shots on B17s ripping thier wings off at D10 like another sim.

[Griego]

Originally posted by SKurj
Ok back to my orginal point...  If you need more than 1 pass to kill an m3 even with 4 50's... your aim needs work...

Othewise your first passes just scratched the paint...

Even the stuka's 7mm guns can disable the turret on an osty...

YOU CANNOT APPLY YOUR OWN SELECTIVE REALISM!!


You get some concessions when you spawn in your pee51, why doesn't the m3 driving player?


This is a game..
In reality hell no, I wouldn't want to be in the m3.  

SKurj

 Only if the Osty doesn't see you first then your dead.

 I also agree that in an open vehicle the bullets of just 2 or 3 mg hitting you would do some damage. Either to driver gunner or troops.