Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: LePaul on June 04, 2006, 05:38:26 PM
-
The ordinance porking at every front line base...and then some, is growing quite tiring. One aircraft is commonly zipping along and eliminating ordinace from front line bases.
And ordinance takes a vrery very long time to re-up.
Meanwhile, you cant bring a base down to 0% or 25% fuel. That's artifically inflated and protected.
The strat model is off, it would be really cool to see some changes made here.
I'm not sure what the "fix" is to this, but I'll just say that its annoying to see the same suicide JABOs come in, strafe, rocket and auger. Then repeat at the next base. Then repeat.
These ammo bunkers need some hardening.
-
With no disrespect intended but how do you think the real battles of WW11 would have played out if the allies left the axis with all their resources intak. My bigest complaint is this is not done enough.. AH 1 you could take a base down to 25% fuel. This made for some very intersesting situations.
-
I agree with LePaul... the ammo bunkers need a little more strength.. lets think about this for a second..... they are ammo "bunkers", not ammo sheds... i shouldnt be able to pop a few 20mm into it and kill it.. can you really knock out a bunker with a few rounds? i think that it should require atleast a 250lb bomb "down the air shaft" to damage it..
-
Well let's play devil's advocate...
Let's make fuel unhardened. In short, make it so you can literally depirve a base of fuel. 0%.
I mean that's accurate, right? Fuel tanks were exposed targets. In WW2, fuel tanks, refieneries, etc were all valid and soft targets (and sternly defended)
Then let's hear the outrage when one porker comes into countless fields and wipes out fuel tanks left and right.
But...the game has made it so that it can NOT go below 75%. And that makes sense.
But ammo bunkers were bunkers. Let's harden them up to that level.
Let me cast this in another light...if ammo bunkers were taken down by a horde of bomb totting bombers or JABOs...Ok, i see that working fine. When when a solo 30mm cannon bird swoops in a few passes, suceeds, then augers....and then rinse & repeat for the next base....yea...that's gaming the game and showing how seriously soft our strat system is.
-
I think ord needs to stay as it is. Not having ord on your plane does not hinder combat effectiveness like having 25% fuel does. I would like to see fuel taken back down to 25%, but 50% would work and the fuel issue is for another topic.
I am also of the opinion that to do any kind of "effective" ord droppin you need to get a lil more altitude than you could get from a frontline base.
Granted I dont like having ords at my base porked either, but I dont feel I have to run and cry about it when there are other bases I can fly from and still be able to reload ord from the re-arm pad at a base that has porked ord. Of course thats providing I can live long enough to re-arm on a re-arm pad.
***Quick Edit***
Sorry LePaul I had re-read one of your previous comments and I do agree I think it is very fair to make the bunkers harder against single pass cannon fire, but I dont think it should be limited in a way to prevent a multiple pass of cannon fire to bring them down. Ord drops should always bring them down in my opinion.
-
Taking the ordinance down only hurts the “base capture/win the war” types, which is okay. Taking the fuel down could hurt the furballers, and that style of play must be protected at all cost. That is why it is easier to use something like an LA7 to bust up a field’s strats than B-26s. Plus, the furballer wouldn’t have to learn a different plane IF they were so inclined to do something like take the strats down.
If you are a “base capture/win the war” type, you are required and expected to protect your fragile ammo bunkers. You have to be multi-dimensional; a jack-of-all-trades. In other words, use Aces High to its fullest potential. “Winning” is actually reserved for that other style of play.
-
grab 2 or 3 others, run m3's or c47's to resupply the field. 15min later, poof, you got ord again.
-
It actually takes longer to run supplies than it does to wait for them to pop back, or (gasp) move to another field.
-
Not if the horde you usually take fields with runs supplies instead.
-
Everybody sees this differently... the origional post wasnt a crying post, it was a suggestion. I agreed with it. Some of you all say, move to another base.. well sometimes that doesnt always work, depending on what you are doing..for example.. im at a airbase.. the VH is down and the LTARs are coming over the hill.. then this LA comes zipping through the sky and guns the bunkers in under 30 seconds and then becomes a lawn dart... now if some of those dreaded bomber pilots zip overhead thats a different story... well the base will be very hard to defend. just go to a different base i guess...
this same thing applies to all the furballers out there.. if a bomber takes out all the FH on a base everybody is up in arms.. crying on 200 saying things like "thanks for ruining the fun" and "you bomber dweeb".. ha ha ha... well.... (gasp).. move to another base.. from another angle, you have all the treadheads in the game crying everytime a bomber hits the VHs.. Kill all bomber pilots or go to another base.. !! ha ha ha.. if i can remember correctly, all hangers were given a makeover (made stronger), then why cant the ord bunkers?
-
I liked it better when fuel could get porked down to 25%
-
Even if they toughen the bunkers there will be another airplane that can get the job done. What bothers me even more is the same guy can drop all the defensive guns on a cv or cruiser by strafing. I dont believe those armored guns should be ruined like that. A two hour rebuild time on bunkers may need to be examined.
-
I agree that the ord bunkers should be harder. Not extremely harder but harder than they are now.
And troops, one lone pilots should not be able to kill al troops at a base.
I also think that it is kinda gamey that you can reload you plane at a base with porked ord. That should be fixed.
Lastly something should be done about the pork and auger crowd. I don't have the solution but this is probably the lamest part of the game. Maybe there should be some kind of penalty for this. How about a 20 perk penalty or a points penalty if you destroy a strat object and then crash X seconds later in an otherwise undamaged plane.
I also think that the bases should be more heavily defended. More ack spread out further around the bases + more man-able ack.
BTW: I am in no way a win the war type. JMO is all.
-
*moved thread. This is not a bug.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
The ordinance porking at every front line base...and then some, is growing quite tiring. One aircraft is commonly zipping along and eliminating ordinace from front line bases.
It is called payback. You dive bomb (you as in who ever does that, not you in person) our CVs, FHs, and furball bases and we kill the ord. :O
How ya like it now? :p
-
Porking in general is out of control. It's done to everything 2 and 3 levels deep all around the map. It stagnates gameplay which is bad enough. But porkers also refuse to engage in a fight and forget about them helping a friendly in trouble. And if you do chase one, they'll double-back for more high-speed passes on the field so they can vultch and hope that the ack kills them before you do.
Ord should be hardened, as should barracks (one would assume the paratroopers would be smart enough to jump into trenches when the air raid siren sounded).
-
Even those who do not care much about "capture bases win the war" must admit that it is a driving force in the MA and contributes to game dynamics. Porking the ordinance is a legitimate tactic and can potentialy drive gameplay - not just restrict it. It is a good gameplay since unlike porking fuel, it still allows the furballers to fly and defend (but not to counter attack efficiently).
However, it is far too easy. Strat buildings should not be destroyed by cannons and MG, or at least take a lot to bring down. For the strat to be strat it means it is a target for JABO and bombers, not for a silly guy in an La7 or typhoon that can kill troops and ord on a base and spare some cannon round for a vulch. Why to even bother carrying bombs?
Reduce gunfire lethality vs. strat buildings.
Bozon
-
As long as my gv keeps getting bombed I will pork ord to my little hearts content.
JMFJ
-
back in the day of old AH when you could pork fule to 25%, it was an easy way for the outnumbered to slow down the horde. now with it limited to 75% it doesnt slow them down at all, and really niether does hittin ammo or troops. cause they can bring multiple goons, and keep cap on the field, since they have atleast 75% fuel.
i say bring back the ability to pork fuel to 25%. also, if HT is gona keep it so that 1 lone fighter can destrat a field, i say reduce the # of player resupplies required to repair the field. 8 is too many, and maybe 1 is too few. so go with like 3.
-
I agree with whels bring back the 25% fuel.
JMFJ
-
Harden ords so it can only be taken out with bombs and rockets.
This would stop the single ac from porking an entire field .
Also lower fuel to 50% would be good.
I feel this would allow for furballers to still up but stop the horde hover over a field.
Bronk
-
So you have no ord, ok so up more guys in Mossies, typhis, nikis and gun the city down and drop troops.
Oh wait - No ord means you can't kill FHrs and CVs ahhh now I understand.
-
Originally posted by mars01
So you have no ord, ok so up more guys in Mossies, typhis, nikis and gun the city down and drop troops.
Oh wait - No ord means you can't kill FHrs and CVs ahhh now I understand.
ya missed 110s .:D
Bronk
-
I see your point. Respectfully, I disagree. I think the modeling is fine and can live with the destruction of the bunker by a few cannon passes. I think that pork ing the fields is a legitimate means of slowing down the enemy or preventing further advance into your territory. That is part of the strategy of the GAME.
However, I do feel that you are correct in that it is too easy for a lone plane to zip inside a bases defenses, fire up the base and auger. Here is a possible solution.... enhance the base defenses. Put more acks/field guns OR add 5 inch puffy acks to fields so that bases can more effectively be defended from the lone suicide attacker.
The improved land based defenses would accomplish several things... one it would make it more difficult for a lone plane or person to effect the outcome of the "war". Second, it would slow down the endless vulch and run wimps and force people to fight out the battles in the air. (Something that should please both furballers and landgrabbers)
But that is just my nickles worth of free advice. :-) And, you know what they say about opinions..... LOL
NCLawMan
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
I agree with whels bring back the 25% fuel.
JMFJ
I had no idea this had changed.... I was busily flying along last night in B17s taking out fuel believing I'm actually doing something.
-
I am floored by the humor of strategery types who've been flattening the FHs for years now (in the never ending effort to end the never ending war) that complain when their ord gets porked. Either you think denying the other players ability to fly is a good thing or it is not, you cannot seriously support dropping the FHs and then say that ord needs to be protected.
I'll go for the hardening of fuel/ammo/troops if and only if the FHs are hardened by the same percentage.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
one would assume the paratroopers would be smart enough to jump into trenches when the air raid siren sounded.
We are.
And yes, the ammo bunkers need to be hardened
to at least the level of the VH (a lousy garage) AND
the barracks as well ... or add 6 barracks to each base
to discourage this kind of nonsensical gameplay.
OR
Triple the number of AA guns on each field. :D
David "96Delta"
-
Originally posted by JMFJ
I agree with whels bring back the 25% fuel.
JMFJ
I like this idea too.
-
I don't want ords and troops hardened . Just immune to ac fire. One 250 lb bomb would suffice. This would also apply to to all hangers . This would stop the heavy cannon birds from gunning down hangers after the misdrop of ords.
Bronk
-
Id rather have rebuild times changed or the number of ammo and troop and fuel bunkers increased. Make the strat porking a team effort rather than the work of a single pilot. In real life werent they hardened and underground? I dont believe cannons or machineguns should hurt them at all.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
I am floored by the humor of strategery types who've been flattening the FHs for years now (in the never ending effort to end the never ending war) that complain when their ord gets porked. Either you think denying the other players ability to fly is a good thing or it is not, you cannot seriously support dropping the FHs and then say that ord needs to be protected.
I'll go for the hardening of fuel/ammo/troops if and only if the FHs are hardened by the same percentage.
nobody is complaining about the ord getting porked.. we are talking about making it a real bunker and not a shed. All hangers have been made harder if i recall correctly.:aok
-
Originally posted by Chalenge
Id rather have rebuild times changed or the number of ammo and troop and fuel bunkers increased. Make the strat porking a team effort rather than the work of a single pilot. In real life werent they hardened and underground? I dont believe cannons or machineguns should hurt them at all.
Hangars are NOT simulated objects, like planes and tanks. Their real life hardness is irrelevant.
Their entire purpose is to serve as ICONS for certain game functions, like the ability to launch a certain plane or to initiate a base capture.
"Damage to destroy" is a variable affecting the tactical, war-fighting part of the game. As such, any adjustment to the hardness changes the way bases change hands, the way attacks are run, and how long maps stay up before resets. Asking for harder ord jsut means "make it easier to bomb," nothing more. Its a partisan request, not one considering the consequences for the entire MA.
Regardless of any flaws in the current system, it clearly works OK. Personally, I'd think it might be better to rebalance the entire system to account for the larger numbers online, than to tweak a single parameter that helps one style of play more than another.
Barring that complete reworking, I think the "armoring" of strat targets, so aircraft ammo doesnt affect much (like is done for tanks) would make sense.....so a singel player doesnt have as much impact on several hiundred others.
-
Originally posted by 101ABN
nobody is complaining about the ord getting porked.. we are talking about making it a real bunker and not a shed. All hangers have been made harder if i recall correctly.:aok
Make it so that no ONE player can drop all of anything at even a small base. No one buff-box has enough ord to drop three FHs then no cannon loaded Mossie can drop the ord and fuel and troops.
I'm fine with that.
-
This is laughable... the guys who claim that killing the FH and CV and porking every base where a fun fite might erupt Is somehow fair game are now crying us a river about having their toys porked? The guys who say up and defend the FH's?
Ok.... you strat girls... up and defend against those players who would pork your ord... just cap your field and shoot those mean men down....
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
This is laughable... the guys who claim that killing the FH and CV and porking every base where a fun fite might erupt Is somehow fair game are now crying us a river about having their toys porked? The guys who say up and defend the FH's?
Ok.... you strat girls... up and defend against those players who would pork your ord... just cap your field and shoot those mean men down....
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Make it so that no ONE player can drop all of anything at even a small base. No one buff-box has enough ord to drop three FHs then no cannon loaded Mossie can drop the ord and fuel and troops.
I'm fine with that.
So you wan't it to take more than 14,000 lbs of ords to kill 1 FH ?
Bronk
-
I may get burned for this, but I understand what LePaul is asking for.
If you are a dedicated bomber pilot and ord is down ... there is no option to lift that bird ... that has to suck. Like he said ... there are "tools" flying across a whole front taking out all ord simplistically and I can understand LePauls frustration ... we felt it when these same "tools" were doing it to fuel.
If HT could assign some sort of percentage value to bomb loads like he does to fuel, then I can see that no bomber would be grounded if all ammo bunkers are taken out ... they can only take %25 of the maximum bomb load if all ammo bunkers are destroyed or ... maybe just 2 bombs ... u get the drift.
At least they could get off the ground and help defend against a GV assault ... just not with their usual maximum bomb load.
On the other hand, I have to agree with Edbert ... all those fluffers that feel the need to take out FHs and/or CVs when its not really needed ... they can suck pond water. But ... I believe that they are the minority in the bomber population, so the more dedicated bombers should not have to suffer for the few griefers.
I also agree that the ammo bunkers need a bit more hardening ... as do the FHs and BHs.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
So you wan't it to take more than 14,000 lbs of ords to kill 1 FH ?
I guess...the actual number means nothing...and I said all the FHs not one...
This is not a simulation it is a game. I think that it needs to be made more difficult for any one player to cause frustration or deny the ability to launch a sortie to hundreds of others. We've generally been calling those lone players who riun the fun of large numers of others...wait for it...GREIFERS!
I see no difference between a bomber ruining a furball by killing the FHs and a lone fighter dropping the ord at a base and riuning a mission. So if that means it takes 2,000,000 pounds of ord so be it.
-
I like that idea, Slapshot. You could either do it by taking away the big loads (for example, lancs couldn't take the 1000 lb load, or a20's wouldn't be able to add the underwing bombs) or by actually limiting the number of bombs... so instead of 14 1k bombs, you might be limited to 10, 7 etc as the ord goes down.
Another possibility may be to have different hardnesses for a fuel/ammo bunker as a fuel/ammo storage pile. For example, instead of having 4 moderately armored fuel/ammo bunkers, you could have 2 very armored ammo bunkers and 2 very soft ammo storage. This would simulate the ord that's ready to go onto a plane vs that which is in deep storage. The stuff lying around would be easy to take out (ie you can still strafe the exposed fuel/ammo trucks to destroy them) and take the base down to 75%, but to knock it down further would require attacking the hard bunkers with a lot of ord.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
If you are a dedicated bomber pilot and ord is down ... there is no option to lift that bird ... that has to suck.
I also agree that the ammo bunkers need a bit more hardening ... as do the FHs and BHs.
VHs also. Can't up an Osti if the VH is down. And the VHs are usually the first to go down. Also the manned ack is too soft. Put some sandbags around it.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
I guess...the actual number means nothing...and I said all the FHs not one...
This is not a simulation it is a game. I think that it needs to be made more difficult for any one player to cause frustration or deny the ability to launch a sortie to hundreds of others. We've generally been calling those lone players who riun the fun of large numers of others...wait for it...GREIFERS!
I see no difference between a bomber ruining a furball by killing the FHs and a lone fighter dropping the ord at a base and riuning a mission. So if that means it takes 2,000,000 pounds of ord so be it.
Ed I agree it should be harder for 1 person to ruin it for the many.
But what is the best way to do this. I don't think just hardening will do it.
1.Bring back old calibration.
2. Lower cloud cover.
3. add some wind at alts
4. add no drop if beyond a certain dive angle in non dive bombers. Also no neg g drop of ords for any AC.
This is just off the top of my head.
I want it a little more difficult on both sides of the fun spoiling.
Bronk
-
I think the amount of ord, fuel, and troops should all be tied to how many of them are up. If there is two sets of barracks on the base and one go's down you can only up 5 troops/4 vehicle supplies/50% field supplies. Likewise with the ord and fuel keep it in ratio with what is available.
Make it so it takes 250lbs more to take them down, and run them in ratio with how many have been destroyed.
Cause right now a single 190D can up w/ord, and wipe out all ord and all barraks in one sortie. If he can survive the ack/defense on a med size field.
Cause I did it the other night, it's kind of lame that one attack fighter can take out that many valued objects by itself in one sortie.
Probably be alot of work, and not the popular vote, but I think it would be cool.
JMFJ
-
Originally posted by whels
back in the day of old AH when you could pork fule to 25%, it was an easy way for the outnumbered to slow down the horde. now with it limited to 75% it doesnt slow them down at all, and really niether does hittin ammo or troops. cause they can bring multiple goons, and keep cap on the field, since they have atleast 75% fuel.
i say bring back the ability to pork fuel to 25%. also, if HT is gona keep it so that 1 lone fighter can destrat a field, i say reduce the # of player resupplies required to repair the field. 8 is too many, and maybe 1 is too few. so go with like 3.
I VOTE FOR WHELS!!!!
BRING back the 25% fuel!!!! RULE!!!! come on HT given in to the ol' timers here for once please????
-
With one Typhoon loaded with rockets I can kill radar, ords and troops on any sized field. Thats assuming enemy fighters or field guns dont get me first.
-
Originally posted by wldmn
I VOTE FOR WHELS!!!!
BRING back the 25% fuel!!!! RULE!!!! come on HT given in to the ol' timers here for once please????
Being able to pork the fuel down to 25% was ok until a relatively few people started porking fuel at every frontline and secondline base along their countries fronts. These same folks would keep the fuel at each base on a timer so that they could hit the bases again and again just as fuel came back up effectively keeping those bases fuel permanently porked.
-
Is it really so much to expect a Jabo to have a "bo"? Or at least a rocket?
-
Everything needs hardening. CVs, hangars, strats. A strafing plane by itself should not be able to shut down a bunch of bases.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Is it really so much to expect a Jabo to have a "bo"? Or at least a rocket?
oh! can I have a bow on my plane?
I've asked before, add more 37mm to the bases and add 88's. We've also had this discussion before and would be nice to harden the ammo bunkers and hangers. I also agree fuel should be porkable to 25% but then HT may need to reset the fuel burn rate in the MA. 25% fuel is plenty to defend a base but difficult to launch offensive raids. with the current burn rate I think a B-24 can go about 2 sectors out and have enough fuel to get back or 4 sectors for a one-way mission. I also agree that as ammo/troops are reduced by percentages then ordance or troops are still available just smaller loadouts
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Being able to pork the fuel down to 25% was ok until a relatively few people started porking fuel at every frontline and secondline base along their countries fronts. These same folks would keep the fuel at each base on a timer so that they could hit the bases again and again just as fuel came back up effectively keeping those bases fuel permanently porked.
This is precisely what is happening with ordinance now.
Ordinance takes an extremely long time to come back up. Resupplying requires a great deal. Meanwhile a VH/FH/BH is fully operational in 15 minutes.
And FWIW...Im not saying this as a disgruntled bomber guy....most of my sorties are in the P-38s/P-51s carrying a few eggs in a JABO operation.
As to the comment about simply upping elsewhere...you've missed the point. The *entire* frontline...and then some...has been porked. Due to the ease of doing so.
I'm impressed with the comments. Clearly strat is something worthy of review. ;)
-
This is precisely what is happening with ordinance now.
I didnt realize ordinance porkage was that bad. Usually the only times I go pork ords is when Ozkansas or Donut maps are up. Then I go pork the ords to stop the bombers from killing our FH's in Fighter Town.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
IIf HT could assign some sort of percentage value
This gives me an idea regarding the troops porkage..
Why not make it so you cannot kill ALL troops
at a base. Make it so they can only be reduced to
say 2 or 5 per plane/truck load. That would force
greater cooperation and teamplay while still allowing
a country to engage in the base capture aspect of the
game.
Hmmmm....
David
-
the ord porking doesnt really bother me as much as the way in which its done..i kid you not i watched 4 ponies pork a whole field and than auger without being at all damaged..i saw them lift again so i upped and followed them for a bounce..they all augered again so i wouldnt shoot them and than went to another base to repeat the whole thing..i played for 30 minutes chasing them around to have them all dump ord and auger before i could engage..just sad
-
Ya bunch of cry babies,
If you don't want your ord taken away then put up a high cap, problem solved.
Sheesh, some of you kids need slapping
wipass
-
Try to come up with a solution which improves gameplay, without causing more problems. Reason it out, show the pros and cons. Calling a style of gameplay you don't like "a bug" is stupid. Stamping your feet and sobbing your hearts out won't win HT over.
More logic, less crying.
-
Thanks for contributing....nothing...to the discussion. Had you *read* any of the previous posts, you guys would've seen we *have* been discussing ideas to fix it.
But, I suppose its easier to post a few zingers and look like a moron.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Thanks for contributing....nothing...to the discussion. Had you *read* any of the previous posts, you guys would've seen we *have* been discussing ideas to fix it.
But, I suppose its easier to post a few zingers and look like a moron.
Ironic, isnt it, given your sig? :)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Thanks for contributing....nothing...to the discussion. Had you *read* any of the previous posts, you guys would've seen we *have* been discussing ideas to fix it.
But, I suppose its easier to post a few zingers and look like a moron.
Great fix. "make it so i can blow their stuff up, but they can't blow my stuff up."
That's a fine suggestion, and a fruitful discussion you've had. In fact, it was so persuasive, I have no idea how hardening bunkers would have any positive effect on gameplay, other than getting you to quit whining about it.
Oh, and since you were speaking of looking like a moron, the word is, "ordnance". ;)
-
I pork, is often only defence against a steamroller - but i will fight when light.
Anyhoo, point i'm going to make is that there is absolutely no defense against porkers. Everything else in this game has a counter except a 550mph typhie/la7/pony hellbent on shooting sheds. You can't kill them in time. By the time you have vis and have closed (this is with a cap intercept mission) they're on the field.
actually this is a bit like the buzz bombs hitting London in wwii. Interesting how history repeats.
-
Originally posted by wipass
Ya bunch of cry babies,
If you don't want your ord taken away then put up a high cap, problem solved.
Sheesh, some of you kids need slapping
Trolling around at 15K waiting for porkers who would rather auger than engage don't exactly sound very rewarding.
-
Lemme get this straight LP.
You're crying a river that it's too easy to rampantly pork the ord and in the same post calling for the return of rampantly porking the fuel?
:rofl
Two points:
1. 25% fuel in an FM2 is FAR less flying time (not enough to get to a fight on the "bases 1+ sector apart maps" ) than you get in say a later war bird like the P-51. So you want to punish the slower, less capable part of the planeset to the heaviest degree. This will drive people to the later war, faster, more heavily armed and more capable aircraft. That will add to the gameplay for sure.
2. As I've heard SO many time and as Laz has so perfectly pointed out
the guys who claim that killing the FH and CV and porking every base where a fun fite might erupt Is somehow fair game are now crying us a river about having their toys porked?
Defend the ammo bunkers boys... that's what you tell us ad nauseam.
I do thank you for the post, however. I had no idea it would be that easy to stymie the lemming hordes. All I have to do is up a late war cannon bird and go a-porking? Kewl. Might renew some of my interest in the game if a few of us can essentially stop the lemming hordes by porking ammo.
A MA with 500 people and no ord.... think of the possibilities! ;)
-
It's good to see the bomber boyz are getting a taste of the frustration us furballers put up with every time we log in. I've just done what's been suggested and take down ord along the front as often as possible. It prevents all the toolshed heros/horders from stopping a fun fight. It's fun to grief the grievers, then hear them squeal. Welcome to what those of us who like to fight airplanes have been dealing with for years. I can see I've been doing a good job!:aok
-
Originally posted by Darkish
Anyhoo, point i'm going to make is that there is absolutely no defense against porkers. Everything else in this game has a counter except a 550mph typhie/la7/pony hellbent on shooting sheds. You can't kill them in time. By the time you have vis and have closed (this is with a cap intercept mission) they're on the field.
That is pretty much true for buffers too. Only way to stop them is to have a high and permanent bar-cap. Not exactly feasible, so your point stands, there's no way to effectivly stop a single player from ruining the ability of a great number of folks not being able to sortie as they wish.
Here's the other side though, HAVING the ability to disrupt the other "team" is to deny them the ability to sortie as they see fit. For one field it is not a big deal, some of these maps have well over 100 bases, but along an entire front takes coordination and planning. So the point to try and decide is how many dedicated jabos or bomber-boxes SHOULD it take to deny a large group of folks the ability to sortie?
-
Just a side on a fun read ;)
Anyone have or know of a site that would have some info on the PB-1 or -2 rocket (not sure which one we have on the 190f8)?
Here is an interesting thought....what about MG/cannon ammo linked also to ord? Maybe if all ord is down you can only up 25% ammo...just an idea....it would give the furballers something to defend also....just a thought :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Lemme get this straight LP.
You're crying a river that it's too easy to rampantly pork the ord and in the same post calling for the return of rampantly porking the fuel?
:rofl
Whose crying a river?
I'm pointing out that an AMMO BUNKER can be downed for hours by an enemy by *merely* strafing it.
A SOFT target like, say, a FUEL DUMP can be downed in a similar function. BUT...in the game, its currently HARD CODED to never go below 75%
So why can a Fuel resource stay up but an AMMO BUNKER has the ruggedness of a tissue box?
2. As I've heard SO many time and as Laz has so perfectly pointed out
Defend the ammo bunkers boys... that's what you tell us ad nauseam.
I do thank you for the post, however. I had no idea it would be that easy to stymie the lemming hordes. All I have to do is up a late war cannon bird and go a-porking? Kewl. Might renew some of my interest in the game if a few of us can essentially stop the lemming hordes by porking ammo.
A MA with 500 people and no ord.... think of the possibilities! ;) [/B]
Toad, I'm simply pointing out the inequality in the strat system in the game.
People like Laz simply furball and that's all well and good. The system, in its current design, is optimized for that.
How can one defend an ammo bunker from a diving/strafe/auger attack? Its considerably different if its a set of Lancs trying to dive into your fhs
-
Originally posted by 101ABN
I agree with LePaul... the ammo bunkers need a little more strength.. lets think about this for a second..... they are ammo "bunkers", not ammo sheds... i shouldnt be able to pop a few 20mm into it and kill it.. can you really knock out a bunker with a few rounds? i think that it should require atleast a 250lb bomb "down the air shaft" to damage it..
On the other hand since everyone is so into reality From flight dynamics to gun velocity to how many rivets are on the skin of a plane.
We are talking 1939-1945
NOT 1990
Ammo was rarely kept in bunkers but at ammo dumps where something as littel as a hand grenade would be enough to set the whole place off.
I remember reading one account several years ago about a german plane that came in and strafed one of our ammo dumps and managed to set it off and it was going off for not hours but days.
Typically the fronts were moving too fast for the construction and use of ammo "bunkers" Hence there were very few of them and they were rarely used.
If anything the ammo is hardened well past its RL counterpart
Its fine the way it is.
Leave it alone. and Defend the feild better. Or Do a turnabout is fair play and do the same to them.
Orrrrrr do what they did IRL and take off from farther back with your bombers and fly to an alt of 10+ K
OTD heavy Bomber runs were only slightly less rare then ammo bunkers
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Whose crying a river?
I'm pointing out that an AMMO BUNKER can be downed for hours by an enemy by *merely* strafing it.
A SOFT target like, say, a FUEL DUMP can be downed in a similar function. BUT...in the game, its currently HARD CODED to never go below 75%
So why can a Fuel resource stay up but an AMMO BUNKER has the ruggedness of a tissue box?
Toad, I'm simply pointing out the inequality in the strat system in the game.
People like Laz simply furball and that's all well and good. The system, in its current design, is optimized for that.
How can one defend an ammo bunker from a diving/strafe/auger attack? Its considerably different if its a set of Lancs trying to dive into your fhs
By killing them at or near their own base ;)
-
Well, LP, there's inequality and there's inequality.
25% fuel in a 109E is not the same as 25% fuel in a P-51 in terms of flying time.
On the big maps..the stupid ones with the airfields more than 3/4 of a sector apart.... 25% fuel ELIMINATES a lot of the early and mid-war birds with small fuel tanks as viable options. You're pretty much out of gas when you get to the fight.
OTOH, the later war aircraft with big tanks can still sortie, do a little fighting and have enough gas to return to base.
Is that equality? Sure isn't if you're an early/mid war afficianado.
The fuel porking rendered useless a significant portion of the planeset. THAT'S why it was changed.
And speaking of "equality", how is it that every airbase has a vehicle hangar but every vehicle base has only a ...vehicle hangar. Equality? This game has nought to do with equality.
-
Having sandbagged and designed real life ammo bunkers in the army, it would take more than a n00b strafing with 20m or 50cal to take out the ammo bunker. Couple of reasons:
a) We dug it in. If we had time, a tractor with a backhoe or a front-end grader would dig out a 4-6 foot deep trench.
b) We sand-bagged the hell out of it - inside and out. We would sandbag primarily the top with re-enforced bars and poles - perhaps 5-8 sandbags high and then around 6 deep on the sides.
c) It was designed to collapse upon itself if the ceiling was hit. Sandbags would then fall on top of all the boxes of rounds and other ammunition to ensure no fire would set off other rounds.
d) Ammo was placed around the sides and under the ground level.
What would you need to take it out? Lots of Napalm, or several well-placed shells from a tank through the front door. :D
Airfields that I worked at had established ammo bunkers were re-enforced concrete structures with 10-20ft of rebared concrete. You would need a bunker-buster bomb to take it out, or a really really big bomb (Stuka?) or again, Napalm through the front door and down the stairs. There would be an elevator to lift up the ordinance - but that would be down the hall. Again, if it's an established bunker, hard to take out even in modern standards but not impossible. BTW - these were bunkers built in the 40's.
Could you strafe it? About as effective as peeing into the wind. ;)
I would guess that two well placed 1000lb bombs would be enough to render/destroy the bunker. If you then dropped incindinary on the hit bunker, you should be able to watch the fire cook off the ammo inside. Now, that would be cool. :D
-
I agree ord should be tougher and I think fuel down to 25% should be put back however the answer to both these is DEFEND YOUR BASES:D
-
Question for Fork: were bunkers in the 40s built in the same fashion with the same materials?
For the rest of the group: what if HTC were to put in some sort of game mechanic, say a resupply like we currently have for GVs? Such a change would allow you to bring ord and troops back up at a porked field, without having to wait for 2 hours. I would think this would negate this "problem" completely, and would be easy to add.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Thanks for contributing....nothing...to the discussion. Had you *read* any of the previous posts, you guys would've seen we *have* been discussing ideas to fix it.
But, I suppose its easier to post a few zingers and look like a moron.
Naw, ........
LP, It's eayser to go along with your post ..........
Than thinking......
-
Make every building invulnerable for anything below 23/30mm, including town buildings, excepting acks. Leave everything else as is.
It will possible to kill all ords & troops alone with bomb & rocks or with IL-2/110G, but will require a bit more effort and make easier to intercept attackers.
As for protection ammo bunkers in RL, i dont know as good it was. But at least i sure they didnt stored it in open space with big red marker on top of heap "AMMO STORE - SHOOT HERE".
-
The "defend your bases" argument for dealing with porkers just doesn't fly. Never has. Never will. They're griefers.
-
Hardening ammo bunkers is complete bull imho.
Reason porking can happen is because of the hoarding. The hoard is in one place leaving all other bases open to jabo runs. The only incentive not to hoard atm is that the singel jabo runner might provide for a target in a non hoarded environment.
So hardening ammo bunkers will mean even more hoarding.
Further given how soft our CVs are hardened ammo bunkers would mean no CVs out at sea.
Tex
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Just a side on a fun read ;)
Anyone have or know of a site that would have some info on the PB-1 or -2 rocket (not sure which one we have on the 190f8)?
Unfortunately, we have the PB-1:
One of those was the Panzerblitz 1 rocket. Developed by Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik, the Panzerblitz (Pb1) was a more successful missile than the Panzerschreck 1 that preceded it. The rocket consisted of an 80mm mortar grenade (Gerat M8 -Device M8) mated with the R4M air-to-air missile. In 1 Sept 1944, four Pb1 launch rails were installed under the wing of Fw-190F-8 Werke Number 733705 for trails. Tests showed the rockets could be launched from about twice the distance from the target (about 200 yards) as the Panzerschreck but with a maximum target approach speed of 305 mph, the aircraft was vulnerable to ground fire.
The number of rockets fitted beneath each wing rose to six and finally standardized on eight very late in the war. Not surprisingly, the smaller warhead penetrated only 90mm of steel. At first, the rockets were fired in two salvos, but later launched in pairs.
The type was replaced by Panzerblitz 2, a modified R4M with a Panzerschreck warhead, capable of penetrating 180mm of armor, but that is another story. Now that would be a nice rocket to have!
Rockets Link (http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/guides/a2g_rockets.htm)
-
Hang on a tick....
What you're saying is, for all intents and purposes; "When a building, filed to the brim with explosive devices, is hit with another explosive device, it should not go kaboooooombloughy!!!"?
Is that what you're saying?
-
Not a "building" really, a tin lean-to or quonset hut more accurately.
But here's a concession to consider...All small and medium bases stay as they are but all zone-control bases, or maybe all large bases have the hardening, or maybe any base that is ~100 miles from nearest enemy base. Harden the troops/fuel/ammo all you want at main bases, just apply the same % of hardening to the FHs there as well.
I thiink the fluffers should be able to up a row or three behind enemy lines even if the front is porked, simulate the channel if you will.
-
Originally posted by TinmanX
Hang on a tick....
What you're saying is, for all intents and purposes; "When a building, filed to the brim with explosive devices, is hit with another explosive device, it should not go kaboooooombloughy!!!"?
Is that what you're saying?
Hangars are NOT simulated objects, like planes and tanks. Their real life hardness is irrelevant.
Their entire purpose is to serve as ICONS for certain game functions, like the ability to launch a certain plane or to initiate a base capture.
Remember that this discussion is really about game balance, not anything else.
-
You guys crying about fuel need to understand, Fuel didn't change because of the porking, it changed becuase of the higher fuel multiplier. With a mult of 2 you cant do squat on 50% and even less on 25%.
For the rest of the group: what if HTC were to put in some sort of game mechanic, say a resupply like we currently have for GVs? Such a change would allow you to bring ord and troops back up at a porked field, without having to wait for 2 hours. I would think this would negate this "problem" completely, and would be easy to add.
This was the original problem when fuel porking was an issue. The work to resupply was and is disproportionate to the little effort needed to drop strat.
Also we have been saying HT needs to up hardness on hangers and CVs and many of you say, "OH just defend your Hangers and CVs", and many of you have said, "Oh, you don't like your hangers going down? Easy porkj the ord." Well how do you like it now. Im with Supa, every sorti I fly starts with porking ord and VH then I fight and I am glad to see it's catching on.
How's that medicine taste? I know it didn't taste too good when you guys were shoving it down our throats.
-
A bomber bombs an FH
A fighter sick of being hangarless goes to pork the ord
He dives in easily strafing down the ord
The bomber pilot returns from another base and porks FH again
Fighter goes to that base and porks ord
Bomber guy comes from another and dive bombs his lancs on the fhs again
Is that what we want?
Id prefer each structure be hardened. That way it requires bomb missions on each side to attack things successfully. Either through many jabos or more than 1 set of bombers.
The one plane shutting down a front is gayness. Defend against him? A D9 screaming in bent on porking? Unlikely.
-
Well Filth, due to the ignorance of many, this is what had to happen for them to open there eyes and see they are not in a vaccume.
They want to pork Hangers well they are going to lose ord. Maybe if heros concentrated on the city and dropping troops rather than the hangers we wouldn't be in this mess.
Last week and I hate to admit it, the fights we so non existant that, we ( a few BKs and a few other knights) started taking bases. All we dropped were the Ack, VH and City. We took both bases we were after in less than an hour. No horde, no hangers harmed. Crap we were actually hoping for a big defence, but it never got that far.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Also we have been saying HT needs to up hardness on hangers and CVs and many of you say, "OH just defend your Hangers and CVs", and many of you have said, "Oh, you don't like your hangers going down? Easy porkj the ord." Well how do you like it now. Im with Supa, every sorti I fly starts with porking ord and VH then I fight and I am glad to see it's catching on.
How's that medicine taste? I know it didn't taste too good when you guys were shoving it down our throats.
Heh.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by mars01
They want to pork Hangers well they are going to lose ord. Maybe if heros concentrated on the city and dropping troops rather than the hangers we wouldn't be in this mess.
Spot on mars I cant even count how many times been over a base and they go for the hangers.Meanwhile the vh and city are still up.A wasted effort IMO.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
A bomber bombs an FH
A fighter sick of being hangarless goes to pork the ord
He dives in easily strafing down the ord
The bomber pilot returns from another base and porks FH again
Fighter goes to that base and porks ord
Bomber guy comes from another and dive bombs his lancs on the fhs again
Is that what we want?
You seem to be coming around to realize what those of us bored with "winning-the-war" have been saying for a while.Lather-rinse-repeat leads to boredom. One horde taking base A while a nearby enemy horde takes bas B rather than meeting one another, least to frustration if you are looking for a even-up fight. Nothing wrong with strat and war-winning, or even hording to some degree, but if in your qeust for the 10 perks you get for "winning" you avoid fighting; it is bad.
-
There is nothing I hate more then when I come to a field to provide CAP for the bases takers and they drop their ord on the FHs instead of VH and town.
9 out of 10 failed takes is due to ignoring VH.
Not only do they waste my time but their as well as since by the time they get back to that base they need to drop FHs again.
If they wana fly a series of bomber sorties and dont care about actually taking the town why not use some strat (ammo factory, fuel depot or what ever) or something else???
Tex
-
Originally posted by whels
back in the day of old AH when you could pork fule to 25%, it was an easy way for the outnumbered to slow down the horde. now with it limited to 75% it doesnt slow them down at all, and really niether does hittin ammo or troops. cause they can bring multiple goons, and keep cap on the field, since they have atleast 75% fuel.
i say bring back the ability to pork fuel to 25%. also, if HT is gona keep it so that 1 lone fighter can destrat a field, i say reduce the # of player resupplies required to repair the field. 8 is too many, and maybe 1 is too few. so go with like 3.
8?
Sorry Whels always been able to do it with 5.
25% fuel porkage would also help to control one of the other major whines on the BB's. The amount of LA7's and Spit XVI's.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
You seem to be coming around to realize what those of us bored with "winning-the-war" have been saying for a while.Lather-rinse-repeat leads to boredom. One horde taking base A while a nearby enemy horde takes bas B rather than meeting one another, least to frustration if you are looking for a even-up fight. Nothing wrong with strat and war-winning, or even hording to some degree, but if in your qeust for the 10 perks you get for "winning" you avoid fighting; it is bad.
Nail on the head...
The problem isnt wanting to bomb, win the war or hoard... its not wanting to fight...
Its the "why defend a base when you can take a new one". Its that attitude that prevents the hoards from meeting each other.
What if there was a map that really forced the hoards to meet and where defense is important?
Something like a Pizza map where ALL the towns where in the center of each nations slice.
That would force the hoards to run into each other... but then again I guess it would just result in R on K, K on B, B on R base.
Question is still can a map be made that increases the incentive of defense? Or can something change to increase the need of defense?
Tex
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Nail on the head...
The problem isnt wanting to bomb, win the war or hoard... its not wanting to fight...
Its the "why defend a base when you can take a new one". Its that attitude that prevents the hoards from meeting each other.
....snip....
Question is still can a map be made that increases the incentive of defense? Or can something change to increase the need of defense?
Tex
Even if an ideal fighting map were made, we'd still have problems with the majority of older maps that remain.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a land strat tweak that would increase the need for defense though. Tougher hangars, towns and strats could backfire by requiring ever larger hordes to do a capture...
But, the idea of dramtaically toughening the strats like hangars and troops while leaving the town unchanged COULD channel efforts into the most efficient pathway, going after the town itself.
Bears consideration.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
ETougher hangars, towns and strats could backfire by requiring ever larger hordes to do a capture...
Good logic, might happen, could also lessent the value of base capture/porking to some degree too. More reason to fight each other than grab undefended/undefensible bases...maybe.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
snip....
. More reason to fight each other than grab undefended/undefensible bases...maybe.
I suspect there's a good deal of player preference involved in the land war/air fight split, so most players wont likely switch when game mechanics make their "fun" harder.
In fact, look at the fighter guys' reaction to FH porking -- they didnt become land warriors, they became unhappy fighter jocks.
Might have more success giving the land war guys built in game incentives to not interfere with the fighter guys' fun -- like toughening hangars/strats while leaving town buildings and ack at their current levels. The more I think about this idea the more I like it...
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Might have more success giving the land war guys built in game incentives to not interfere with the fighter guys' fun -- like toughening hangars/strats while leaving town buildings and ack at their current levels. The more I think about this idea the more I like it...
This is an incentive? How exactly.
For a GV'er just makes it harder to kill the ord so you get egged every 5 mins.
At least think everything through.
One 'small' change that seems like a good idea for one group of players can affect all the other groups.
So the question becomes - If your HT who do you cater to?
Edbert - whether you like it or not the game is now "Win the War".
-
One BF110 can take out the VH, Ordinance, (1) FH, Troops, and Radar at an airfield with one ammo loadout. Low La7's can take out ordinance, troops, and dar in a couple of passes. Maybe cannons are over modeled, or buildings need to be tougher? Alternately, and I know this is going to go over like a lead balloon.... proximity fuses on carrier and field ack.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
One BF110 can take out the VH, Ordinance, (1) FH, Troops, and Radar at an airfield with one ammo loadout. Low La7's can take out ordinance, troops, and dar in a couple of passes. Maybe cannons are over modeled, or buildings need to be tougher? Alternately, and I know this is going to go over like a lead balloon.... proximity fuses on carrier and field ack.
Regards,
Malta
I thought the carrier ack had proximity fuses...at the least the manned ones.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
This is an incentive? How exactly.
For a GV'er just makes it harder to kill the ord so you get egged every 5 mins.
At least think everything through.
One 'small' change that seems like a good idea for one group of players can affect all the other groups.
So the question becomes - If your HT who do you cater to?
Edbert - whether you like it or not the game is now "Win the War".
Good point about the GV'ers.
By incentive, I meant a structural rule setup that channels efforts in the direction you would love to see them go. In that sense, tougher VH, FH, and BH all mean that attacking them becomes less productive, or less efficient use of ordinance. By leaving buildings unchanged, and making hangars tougher, you give a gameplay incentive for attakcers to hit buildings and leave hangars up -- and that allows more players to get involved.
-
Wow ... there are some really interesting twists of logic going on here. And apparently a few folks don't remember things they posted only a few months ago about the evils of one groups of players deliberately ruining the gameplay of another.
However ...
Rampant porking is nothing new. All that's really changed is the total numbers involved. The rationalization of "helping the team" is thin, because there's porking of undefended bases, bases 3 levels behind the front, bases being horded, everywhere. The 4 or 5 planes busy blowing up ord during a base attack would probably be more useful taking the town down. But then they couldn't vultch - and get perks - which is all its really about.
I don't think the concern about bigger hordes matters at this point. It's not uncommon to see 20+ planes CAP'ing a base (with FH down) waiting for the C47's to arrive these days. Would 5 more planes make a difference? Nah.
The arguments against hardening ground assets from a historical angle are irrelevent. The point is the current system has given griefers the means to mess things up for others, and waste the time of anyone who tries to chase them down.
In general I'm against adding more AAA to fields, because that leads to too much running to the ack. But given the current war of attrition, some changes may be in order. Maybe adjust the rebuild time on AAA based on how many enemy planes are over a field as a start. So in the 20:0 case I mentioned above, the ack rebuilds in like a minute and loitering around over the field becomes hazardous.
Maybe add more AAA positions, but some only activate when a certain number of planes are over a field. So if your field has 6 auto guns as a base, maybe that goes up to 8 when 10 enemy planes are overhead, 10 when there's 20, and so on. And maybe the additional AAA are M16's that pop onto the field. Something with enough rate of fire to stand a good chance of scoring some hits - and that won't be taken out with one cannon shell.
-
Sorry Whels always been able to do it with 5.
Ords has a 2 hour rebuild time. Each load of supplies takes 15 minutes off that time. If only one person is running supplies it wont take a full 8 loads to resupply a base simply because of the time you spend running those supplies to the field, the clock on the rebuild time is still counting down while you are flying your C-47 or driving your M-3 to the field.
-
Wow ... there are some really interesting twists of logic going on here. And apparently a few folks don't remember things they posted only a few months ago about the evils of one groups of players deliberately ruining the gameplay of another.
No Dok we remember quite perfectly and while I am against "the evils of one group of players deliberately ruining the gameplay of another" when it is that group of players that has been ruining game play for so many finally getting a taste of their own medicine I am all for it.:aok
-
I'm having a hard time believing you'd build runways, hangers an revetments for aircraft and not make the ammunition dump proof against up to medium caliber cannon fire (like 30mm). Dropping a 250lber or up on the ordnance depot should kill it. A full load of .50 should do jack.
I know that idea of making someone drop a bomb to prevent others from dropping bombs sounds odd, it's pretty logical and certainly prevents the quick and easy porking from happening.
-
I agree with others when they say they haven't realized how bad the ordinance porking was. But, to be honest, even with that comment, I can't seem to find solid ground to argue the point that there needs to be a solution to all of the strat porking.
If your troops are down, fuel is low, ordinance is gone... simply re-up from another base. If you can't up from another base from the same problem, then its your fault for letting the enemy take out your resources not only at the first line of defense, but at the second line as well.
For the most part, that's not the case. Usually you can up from a base only 20-30 miles away that has ordinance. There is nothing wrong with not being able to take off from a front line base and spending an extra 4-8 minutes to gather your resources and yourself, fly an extra 20 miles to go on strat run that the enemy just put upon you.
-
Originally posted by mars01
No Dok we remember quite perfectly and while I am against "the evils of one group of players deliberately ruining the gameplay of another" when it is that group of players that has been ruining game play for so many finally getting a taste of their own medicine I am all for it.:aok
Either you stand against griefing or you don't. Pretty simple.
-
Well, there IS schadenfreud.....
not the player, but the feeling of satisfaction when ones opponent encounters misfortune.
I'd bet most reasonable fighter guys would be perfectly happy if the GVers, the Landwar Wagers, and the Air-to-Air guys all had equal opportunity to do their thing.
-
Either you stand against griefing or you don't. Pretty simple.
Give me a break Dok are you always this stubborn? If you can't understand what I am saying just forget about it.
-
Originally posted by mars01
No Dok we remember quite perfectly and while I am against "the evils of one group of players deliberately ruining the gameplay of another" when it is that group of players that has been ruining game play for so many finally getting a taste of their own medicine I am all for it.:aok
So griefing is only a point of view? If you're the one doing it to somebody else it's OK? Gotcha.
In that case, I guess I don't see a problem with the way it is because "so many" seem to want to play current way. :aok
-
OMG we got another one.
No Lyel - Griefing the griefers is a direct result of having griefers. Get rid of the griefers and there is no one to griefe. Get it?
On top of wich we are only doing what all you guys told us to do. Many said -
"You don't like having hangers dropped, stop whining and kill the ord."
Now we are killing the ord and you guys are crying. Like I said change the Bomber mantra from FHrs first to VH and City first and you will see ord porking stop by people such as myself. Like I have said in the past, if you heros want the base and you come prepared to take it, fine. But dropping hangers just cause you see a fight will make me kill ord every time.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Ords has a 2 hour rebuild time. Each load of supplies takes 15 minutes off that time. If only one person is running supplies it wont take a full 8 loads to resupply a base simply because of the time you spend running those supplies to the field, the clock on the rebuild time is still counting down while you are flying your C-47 or driving your M-3 to the field.
An idea...reduce the down time?
-
So your saying 8 guys can have the ord back up in one flights time. Sounds easy enough. WTF are you guys crying about, I wish it was the same for hangers. Is it? LOL
-
Originally posted by mars01
OMG we got another one.
No Lyel - Griefing the griefers is a direct result of having griefers. Get rid of the griefers and there is no one to griefe. Get it?
So, by griefing the griefers I am causing more grief? So to reduce the spread of griefing we should grief less? but grief is a many splended thing, what we need is grief, sweet grief, grief makes the world go 'round,
-
Fighter Hangers will re-generate in 15 minutes and field supplies has no bearing on that time frame.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Fighter Hangers will re-generate in 15 minutes and field supplies has no bearing on that time frame.
Precisely.
And another point lost to various folks flaming one another...
Fuels cant be brought down to nothing and are every bit as soft a target as the ammo.
I have yet to see HTC chime in about this...but it would be nice to see the down times reduced.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I'd bet most reasonable fighter guys would be perfectly happy if the GVers, the Landwar Wagers, and the Air-to-Air guys all had equal opportunity to do their thing.
That's been my point for years. Some of these maps have well over a hundred bases, that is plenty of room for everyone to play their thing, we have some with a TT and some with a FT. But quite often TT is being proweled by bombers/jabos and folks keep dropping the FHs at FT, what could that possibly mean other than...there's a group whose "thing" is causing greif to others.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
That's been my point for years. Some of these maps have well over a hundred bases, that is plenty of room for everyone to play their thing, we have some with a TT and some with a FT. But quite often TT is being proweled by bombers/jabos and folks keep dropping the FHs at FT, what could that possibly mean other than...there's a group whose "thing" is causing greif to others.
I think hereby hangs the problem -
On large maps it is virtually impossible to keep all the frontline bases down.
Problem is not whats going on - IT'S THE SMALL MAPS, they can't support the 500+ players @ prime time.
The buffs jabos at TT are just lamers padding their score, you know that.
-
well, imho the biggest problem is that the game revolves around fighting over airfields. if we fought over towns and factories and such away from the fields it might be a whole different story, and a whole different thread too:) not trying to hijack, but might be neat if instead of captruing a town at an airbase, you captured a town in the middle of 2 bases, surronded by nearby strat and stuff. who ever owns the town, owns the strat. but like i said, guess an entirely different thread.
-
Originally posted by mars01
So your saying 8 guys can have the ord back up in one flights time. Sounds easy enough. WTF are you guys crying about, I wish it was the same for hangers. Is it? LOL
No Mars, supplies have no effect on the hangers. :(
The hard part of resuppling is finding others willing to help heh.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
An idea...reduce the down time?
Thats an idea that could work. While you could still pork the ammo bunkers at an enemy base your efforts wouldnt recieve as much reward. *Might* stop some of the griefing.
-
Originally posted by mars01
OMG we got another one.
No Lyel - Griefing the griefers is a direct result of having griefers. Get rid of the griefers and there is no one to griefe. Get it?
On top of wich we are only doing what all you guys told us to do. Many said -
"You don't like having hangers dropped, stop whining and kill the ord."
Now we are killing the ord and you guys are crying. Like I said change the Bomber mantra from FHrs first to VH and City first and you will see ord porking stop by people such as myself. Like I have said in the past, if you heros want the base and you come prepared to take it, fine. But dropping hangers just cause you see a fight will make me kill ord every time.
Most of the time it isnt necessary to drop the FH's to ensure a base capture. Kill acks and the VH FIRST, then drop the town while keeping the base capped/vulched and you will win the majority of your base capture attempts. Granted, sometimes you will lose your goon to a goon hunter that upped at another base, but you will be successful most of the time.
I've seen far more capture attempts fail because the goon got killed by a goon hunter away from the base or because a GV made it to the town and no one had ords left to kill it than I have because a lone plane made it off the runway to lay the smack down on a goon at the last second.
-
Originally posted by pluck
well, imho the biggest problem is that the game revolves around fighting over airfields. if we fought over towns and factories and such away from the fields it might be a whole different story, and a whole different thread too:) not trying to hijack, but might be neat if instead of captruing a town at an airbase, you captured a town in the middle of 2 bases, surronded by nearby strat and stuff. who ever owns the town, owns the strat. but like i said, guess an entirely different thread.
I think you are on to something here. One map in rotation kind of has this....not sure of the name. Maybe use a "front" system. Much like the old movies we all watch with the maps on the walls with the fronts drawn on them.
All I do know is I hate when my Fw190F8 is grounded due to lack of ord ;)
-
Originally posted by pluck
well, imho the biggest problem is that the game revolves around fighting over airfields. if we fought over towns and factories and such away from the fields it might be a whole different story, and a whole different thread too:) not trying to hijack, but might be neat if instead of captruing a town at an airbase, you captured a town in the middle of 2 bases, surronded by nearby strat and stuff. who ever owns the town, owns the strat. but like i said, guess an entirely different thread.
Very interesting idea pluck.
-
Pluck - you may have hit the nail on the head. Historically, strategic captures were ALWAYS towns, the airfields were just bonuses. :)
Why isn't AH about capturing towns?
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Pluck - you may have hit the nail on the head. Historically, strategic captures were ALWAYS towns, the airfields were just bonuses. :)
Why isn't AH about capturing towns?
It is, has been since...dang...almost forever.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Pluck - you may have hit the nail on the head. Historically, strategic captures were ALWAYS towns, the airfields were just bonuses. :)
Why isn't AH about capturing towns?
This idea (isolating the city more from airfields) has been raised on more than one occasion. Some folks even sketched up maps along those lines.
Given the current tenor of the MA, I doubt it'd make a difference by itself. The Little Generals would still kill nearby hangars to prevent cities from being defended; the griefers would still pork, vultch, and auger (not necessarily in that order) to "help the team"; The Horde would do what it always does - except with even lower efficiency; and everyone else would still be shaking their heads going: "WTF are these people playing for?"
I think such a shift is the right direction, though. Partly because it allows GV's to be part of the "war" without making them at the same time airfield griefers like they are now. The trick is balancing it so that to "help the team" it makes more sense to blow up city buildings than ord/fuel/barracks.
But at the same time I'll also bet you'll see whining from certain quarters about having to fly a whole 2 miles to the city to find a fight, instead of having it overhead when they take off.
-
I seldom see fields being taken with the FHs down.
The order of battle seems to be kill VH, disable radar, de-ack, establish air superiority, work the town down and prevent cons frmo upping while troops are brought in
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I seldom see fields being taken with the FHs down.
The order of battle seems to be kill VH, disable radar, de-ack, establish air superiority, work the town down and prevent cons frmo upping while troops are brought in
The attacks I'm seeing of late are going kinda like:
[list=1]
- First wave of Jabo horde ... kills barracks and ord ... tries to get VH (misses half the time)
- Vultching commenses
- Vultchers start dying as defenders start to gather
- 2nd wave of Jabos starts to roll in, trying to kill FH this time ... sometimes they wise up and kill VH, though
- As this wave starts to die, they realize that some of the field guns have tracers off and start to de-ack the field
- The first wave of low-alt heavy bombers starts to appear - missing the FH badly
- Several more waves of bombers and Jabos stagger into the field until finally the FH are down and they have a dozen planes over the field
- Attackers now realize: "The town! We have to kill the town!"
- CAP starts to decay as they head to kill town and IL2's start to lift ... VH comes back up around now
- A semi-chaotic condition ensues where attackers must decide if they want to kill the town and protect the C47's, or vultch the field - most choose the latter, C47's die, town still mostly up
- Spurious porkers bust through the furball ahead of the field - ignoring the fight completely - for their chance to blow up a toolshed and make a couple passes on the runway
- The FH are back up by now and there's a flury of bombing attempts (and augers) to take them back down
- Heavy bombers now start coming back in killing town and FH and VH ... eventually ... Jabo fighters seem to be more interested in bombing GV's than the VH ... there's still a manned ack up with tracers off killing vultchers
- This process continues until either the defenders just get worn down by the odds or get reinforcements - only in the former case does the field get captured
[/list=1]
It is indeed an awesome display of teamwork.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Hardening ammo bunkers is complete bull imho.
Reason porking can happen is because of the hoarding. The hoard is in one place leaving all other bases open to jabo runs. The only incentive not to hoard atm is that the singel jabo runner might provide for a target in a non hoarded environment.
So hardening ammo bunkers will mean even more hoarding.
Further given how soft our CVs are hardened ammo bunkers would mean no CVs out at sea.
Tex
Wow!
Someone that actually "gets it":aok
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Having sandbagged and designed real life ammo bunkers in the army, it would take more than a n00b strafing with 20m or 50cal to take out the ammo bunker. Couple of reasons:
a) We dug it in. If we had time, a tractor with a backhoe or a front-end grader would dig out a 4-6 foot deep trench.
b) We sand-bagged the hell out of it - inside and out. We would sandbag primarily the top with re-enforced bars and poles - perhaps 5-8 sandbags high and then around 6 deep on the sides.
c) It was designed to collapse upon itself if the ceiling was hit. Sandbags would then fall on top of all the boxes of rounds and other ammunition to ensure no fire would set off other rounds.
d) Ammo was placed around the sides and under the ground level.
What would you need to take it out? Lots of Napalm, or several well-placed shells from a tank through the front door. :D
Airfields that I worked at had established ammo bunkers were re-enforced concrete structures with 10-20ft of rebared concrete. You would need a bunker-buster bomb to take it out, or a really really big bomb (Stuka?) or again, Napalm through the front door and down the stairs. There would be an elevator to lift up the ordinance - but that would be down the hall. Again, if it's an established bunker, hard to take out even in modern standards but not impossible. BTW - these were bunkers built in the 40's.
Could you strafe it? About as effective as peeing into the wind. ;)
I would guess that two well placed 1000lb bombs would be enough to render/destroy the bunker. If you then dropped incindinary on the hit bunker, you should be able to watch the fire cook off the ammo inside. Now, that would be cool. :D
And you did this during WWII?
Like I said. We're talking 1939-1945
NOT 1990+
Or even 1960+
-
Its amazing how people only want "historical accuracy" with the things that suit them and dont want it for the things that dont
I have seen people critical over the placement of, and how many rivets were on a panel on a skin.
And people complain that explosive material blows up too easily
(insert old eyroll emoticon here)
Particulalry at front line bases where it would be even LESS likely the ammo would have bee in hardened bunkers (again insert old eyroll emoticon here)
Guess taking off from a different base is COMPLETELY out of the question huh?
What you really need is some of this
Here kiddies
(http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/chaubiercheese.jpg)
:D
-
Well, if HiTech hasn't posted here yet, that means it ain't gonna change...
So with that in mind..
I'll just insert a generic AOL style 'Me Too' to which ever side is right.
-
I seldom see fields being taken with the FHs down.
The order of battle seems to be kill VH, disable radar, de-ack, establish air superiority, work the town down and prevent cons frmo upping while troops are brought in
Yep 9 out of 10 times you will get the base this way. Unfortunately the only guys I see do this are the Vets from AHI.
The rest all go the way Dok precisely put it. When I see the FHrs go down I know the maroons have arrived.
-
How about this to increase incentive to defend and to try to retake a lost base.
After nation X takes a field it takes say 60 min for that base to become operational. Meaning you can only refuel and rearm at that pad for that time.
This would mean that you actually have to hold it for 60 min before its of any use to the nation.
It would be faster to retake a base then it would be to take a new one.
Im just thinkin out loud here trying to find new ways.
Tex
-
Ok... let's see if we get this...
Griefing is really strat so long as it is other players game being ruined... If they don't like it then tough... they don't have to pay the griefers fifteen bucks bill a month...
A griefer strat girl who's ord is porked is quite antother thing... he is being unfairly treated in the game... ONE person can ruin the game for him and his bridge club of fellow fluffers and make it impossible for them to have an easy shed orgy.. this is somehow unfair.
The toolshed greifers will squeal like rock stars in prison if their ord is porked by a single player but when they are able to do the same to someone else they say..... "if it bothers you then fly cap and defend your FH or CV"
When told to do the same they simply cry...
The real point being... If you can ruin the fight and fun for more than one person at a time then the game you play is probly the game of an attention starved, tallentless greifer and you probly deserve to be treated in kind.
As for fuel... It should never have been a percent in any case. It should have been gallons. Use the fuel load of a 51 say... or whatever... allow everyone to take the same gallons. 50% of a fuel load for a P47 say would over fill a 109.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...
As for fuel... It should never have been a percent in any case. It should have been gallons. Use the fuel load of a 51 say... or whatever... allow everyone to take the same gallons. 50% of a fuel load for a P47 say would over fill a 109.
...
In general I like the idea ... except it means that the planes which already abound in the MA (Spit16 and La7) are more or less immune to fuel damage at bases. So on that basis I think what we have now works well.
-
Maybe HTC has a reason for the extensive down time for fuel and ammo bunkers... Maybe HTC is trying to get across the point that this game is not just about flying your fighter into more fighters and then go land. Maybe they are trying to say: hey, you need to defend your resources or you will be screwed for a while...
It is very rare that I see people run C47's to re-supply a base that was just hit. I know some of you out there are dedicated to boring jobs of that sort and I respect that, because there aren't enough people that help out the "country" in other ways besides fighting.
If your base was hit - It was your fault for not defending it.
Up from another base - It will only take an extra 5 mins.
Resupply your bases - Someone has to do it if you want your resources back. Think of other ways to help your country out besides strictly furballing and fighter sweeps with groups or squads.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And you did this during WWII?
Like I said. We're talking 1939-1945
NOT 1990+
Or even 1960+
Did you miss the quote that the bunkers I saw at the airfields I worked at were built in the early 40's? :)
I don't think that field bunker building (mobile) has changed a whole lot in 100 years for us army grunts and engineers. :D
-
gonzo... but... we are in effect playing the spit/lw game here... we are playing the short range fighter plane game that the short sighted euros played in the war..
A plane that is light and short ranged should be king of a short ranged battle compared to a heavy long range plane.
My point is that fuel should not be a factor in this game and that is pretty much how it shook out in WWII. The planes with long range really have no advantage here. For them to have an advantage you have to do a silly and gamey "limit fuel" thing.
Course... no planes took of with "50%" because fuel was limited... they may have not taken off at all if there was no fuel...or taken off with less just to get up quickly or.... like some corsairs at close bases...taken off with less because they simply needed less but ..... no one said....ok.... you are all gonna get only25% in your tanks today cause fuel has been wiped out... nope... maybe only one in four got up if that were the case but they got all the fuel they needed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Did you miss the quote that the bunkers I saw at the airfields I worked at were built in the early 40's? :)
I don't think that field bunker building (mobile) has changed a whole lot in 100 years for us army grunts and engineers. :D
Igloos over here at Aviano are still like that. We have 44 buildings with 15-18 of them range from being built in the late 30's-40's.... I should know, I work with bombs every day... very good point made on your part! :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gonzo... but... we are in effect playing the spit/lw game here... we are playing the short range fighter plane game that the short sighted euros played in the war..
A plane that is light and short ranged should be king of a short ranged battle compared to a heavy long range plane.
...
I'm not disagreeing on the basis of realism, but rather on the way the MA works.
Basically what'd happen is you'd just shift who's getting griefed. Right now the Spit/190/La/Yak/etc. crowd gets hurt by "50% fuel". With your way, its the P51/P47/F4U/etc. crowd that gets hurt by "only 150 gals fuel" (or whatever the number comes out to be).
And as long as that's the case - especially since it's the US birds which can carry the most Jabo ord - porking will remain rampant and unabated.
-
OK as a Bish I have to say something here. Most on here are not Bish. If you are outnumberd and getting squeezed on all sides what are you going to do. Well pork the field to try and slow down the horde. Taking the ability for that to happen will do more harm then good. People will turn around and log off because they cant stop the horde and just getting steamrolled on two sides. I am a big time porker and I dont do the lawn darting I will keep porking your field and de acking till I am dead. Now I do agree with hardening them alittle. IE I will agree that ammo bunkers should not be taken by out by just guns. I would say that you would have to hit with 2 rockets but saying bombs no. Bringing back the 25% fuel would be great also.
-
well... years ago I said that we should have huge cities that have to be leveled to "win the war"... As has been said.... we have 150 fields and no one is using but half a dozen when 500 people are on... How is "winning the war" good when it involves.... capturing nothing but airfields? I have played for years and maybe seen.... 3 resets?
So have huge cities... when they are flat... the war is won... If you are a strat girl you can up fluffs or escort fluffs to the cities... You can up fighters to defend the cities... you can flatten airfields on the way to cities...
Noble furballers can ignore the "win the war" and furball between airfields..
A war could be "won" with dozens of airfields still open and furballs going on between them.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
My point is that fuel should not be a factor in this game and that is pretty much how it shook out in WWII.
Really?
Guess you know more than all the experts who mention the LW having severe fuel problems towards the end of the war. Both in quantity and quality.
From the Allies side, no it wasn't a problem, but a blanket statement like yours is totally wrong.
-
This issue is simple. HT has basically turned off the strategy model, there is no strategy to the game, EXCEPT ord. Now while I much prefer some additional strategy, I understand the 'game' issues things create. For example, I loved being able to pork fuel, this however eliminated 90% of the planes from gameplay consistantly on the front lines as the only planes in the air were the most fuel efficient and the ones with the biggest fuel tanks (which makes no sense with a fuel shortage but is the way the game is coded).
The issue with fuel was also exsasterbated with the fuel being easily taken out be a single fighter, this is the same problem we have with ord. Any base can have its ord destroyed by a single fighter, and this causes an issue, especially at bases where the enemy can roll in GVs quickly. I am much more infavor of trying a limited ord approach, where, much like fuel was, it isnt completely unavalable, just limited. Making so that a total bombing wieght based on pecentage of ord would be an intersting experiment, and put a bottom on it so theres always at least small bombs available.
75%=no rockets
50%=no rockets, max bomb size 500 lbs
25%=no rockets, max bomb size 250 lbs
0%= no rockets, max bomb size 250 lbs only 1 bomb per flights (effectivly eliminating heavy bombers)
I duno...just an idea.
-
That idea was floated a couple months ago too. I think rockets should always be available, though.
Lazs, I probably fly a lot less than you and I'm usually around for a reset per month.
Maybe there's a reason why non-Bish are the ones complaining about porking.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The attacks I'm seeing of late are going kinda like:
[list=1]
- First wave of Jabo horde ... kills barracks and ord ... tries to get VH (misses half the time)
- Vultching commenses
- Vultchers start dying as defenders start to gather
- 2nd wave of Jabos starts to roll in, trying to kill FH
- A semi-chaotic condition ensues where attackers must decide if they want to kill the town and protect the C47's, or vultch the field - most choose the latter, C47's die, town still mostly up
[
It is indeed an awesome display of teamwork.
Thats what I've been seeing also. Set up a vulch they can't maintain while "somebody else" is supposed to kill the town. By the time the town is down the enemy is upping. If the FH is left up the capture usually fails unless a Horde forms.
Seldom is there a well executed attack with a sufficient number of people to be quick and effective. This is especially true if you are in an underdog country.
-
So have huge cities... when they are flat... the war is won... If you are a strat girl you can up fluffs or escort fluffs to the cities... You can up fighters to defend the cities... you can flatten airfields on the way to cities...
Noble furballers can ignore the "win the war" and furball between airfields..
A war could be "won" with dozens of airfields still open and furballs going on between them.
Would be nice to see everyone fighting in one area, but it can't work with 3 coutries, now do this in the AvA and you have conentrated fights and one goal so you always know where to find the action.
Why do I get the feeling CT is going to be like this...
-
Also on the whole bunker thing, I'll bet, those buners you guys are speaking of look nothing like the bunkers did when they first established those fields. What a front line bunker looks like would be more to the topic.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... let's see if we get this...
Griefing is really strat so long as it is other players game being ruined... If they don't like it then tough... they don't have to pay the griefers fifteen bucks bill a month...
A griefer strat girl who's ord is porked is quite antother thing... he is being unfairly treated in the game... ONE person can ruin the game for him and his bridge club of fellow fluffers and make it impossible for them to have an easy shed orgy.. this is somehow unfair.
The toolshed greifers will squeal like rock stars in prison if their ord is porked by a single player but when they are able to do the same to someone else they say..... "if it bothers you then fly cap and defend your FH or CV"
When told to do the same they simply cry...
The real point being... If you can ruin the fight and fun for more than one person at a time then the game you play is probly the game of an attention starved, tallentless greifer and you probly deserve to be treated in kind.
As for fuel... It should never have been a percent in any case. It should have been gallons. Use the fuel load of a 51 say... or whatever... allow everyone to take the same gallons. 50% of a fuel load for a P47 say would over fill a 109.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
but nobodies game is "ruined"
You simply take off from another base.
Which is where buffs should be upping to begin with and not doing NOE missions in heavy bombers.
If I had my way. the only bombers that would be allowed to up from front line bases would by the light and medium bombers. No heavy bomber would even be allowed to up a front line base
but back to porking
Ont the larger maps its next to impossible to keep ALL the front line bases ammo porked at the same time. Trust me. I've tried when baseporking was my primary fun.
Typically I Now, on the occasions I pork bases only pork bases where hordes are operating out of.
Hordes in essence are greifers too as they also ruin other peoples gameplay.
so turnabout is fair play
And I HATE the hore.
Soooo.
dont want me to pork your bases.
Dont horde barely defended ones.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Did you miss the quote that the bunkers I saw at the airfields I worked at were built in the early 40's? :)
I don't think that field bunker building (mobile) has changed a whole lot in 100 years for us army grunts and engineers. :D
Must have missed it.
Where were they? USA or abroad?
Still during the war and particularly in the ETO. the fronts were moving too fast for front line hardened ammo bunkers to be practical.
Not saying there werent any.
but they were by far the expetion and not the norm
-
A21 was a fluster cluck last night for the Rooks. There had to be 50 or more planes capping A21. There were so many there, that the field icon was completely covered in green.
2 and 1/2 hours after I logged in, they finally took it. For the 2 and 1/2 hours, there was a green conga line to A21.
Multiple goons streamed enroute to A21 constantly asking for siterp on the town as they drew near ... rarely would anyone answer them ... goons arrive ... town is still up in some form or another ... again this went on for 2 and 1/2 hours.
It was HYSTERICAL !!!!!!! ... strateegery at its finast.
:rofl
-
The radio traffic after the reset was almost as good, Slap.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The radio traffic after the reset was almost as good, Slap.
It always is ... I still to this day can't fathom some of the jabbing that goes on just after a reset.
Especially this one ... "You never would have won without numbers" ... :rofl
I got my WIN THE WAR PERKS !!!! ... WOOOOOT ... almost broke the 23,000 perk barrier ... LOL.
-
damn slap.... I only have 22,000 perks...you must reset a lot of maps.
dred... sure...you can allways take off from a farther out field but.... it is only fun doing nothing forever if you are a mouse weilding fluffer who is multitasking being an elf or knob goblin in everqauest at the same time tho.
not fun for nobel furbllers.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
damn slap.... I only have 22,000 perks...you must reset a lot of maps.
dred... sure...you can allways take off from a farther out field but.... it is only fun doing nothing forever if you are a mouse weilding fluffer who is multitasking being an elf or knob goblin in everqauest at the same time tho.
not fun for nobel furbllers.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
but I think we are primarily talking aboutthe ord being perked here no?
Which is something the furballers should welcome.
I do a bit of everything.
But if I were a dedicated furryballer the first order of buisness for the night would be to pork the ord and troops at opposing feilds with the first flight, then off to furballing
-
gonzo.. I might not have been clear... I don't mean that my chesspiece doesn't see resets... I meant that I have only seen a few resets the whole time I have played AH... course... I may play more than you but I rarely play more than an hour or two at a time.
also...on the fuel thing... I believe that is why HT stopped the 25% thing since it turned out to be simply a way to force people into peee 51's anyway.
Dred... yes... given the hardness of all targets and the fact that if a carport is killed you can't take off in airplanes.... then, using that ruler of realism... I am glad that ord and troops are easy to kill... I wish that it were easier.
I have rarely done it because it is boring but... I would love it if we could trade perk points for killing ord.... say... 500 perk points and you could make it dead..
kev.. fuel was short at a lot of fields at one time or another.... nowhere that I know of tho did they give anyone less fuel than he needed to do the mission.... unless he was a kamikazi of course.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Same complaint about fuel porking a few years ago. We used to be able to pork fuel to 25%.
hap
p.s. i miss the fuel porking.