Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemisis on June 19, 2009, 04:53:42 PM
-
OK, as you all probably know, AP bombs were used on carrier attacks because they would pierce the flight deck and then explode inside whatever happened to be below it. I was thinking we should have the ability to drop AP bombs and incendiary while we're at it, from bombers. I don't know about fighters, I'm gonna leave it up to High Tech or Scuzzy or whoever is in charge of this type of thing.
If you hit a carrier with an AP bomb you punch a hole in it's flight deck meaning, depending on where it hit, you won't be able to launch or land fighters of aircraft. It could also reduce the amount of fuel or ord you could take if it happened to hit the armory or wherever they store bombs and fuel. The whole in the deck would stay there for about 5 min or however long it would take for damage control to fix it.
The incendiary bombs could be used on barracks, ord, fuel dumps, and towns and it would light on fire what ever if hit and the fire would spread. It could also deal damage to a larger area but do less damage per bomb.
Before you start moaning and trying to boo me out of the forum remember that this knife cuts both ways.
And try to come up with a real reason, not just "oh no it's a bad idea", or "well then I couldn't fly for maby 3 Min's."
-
You have too much time on your hands for someone who doesn't even play the game.
:aok
Craters don't work on airfields, they won't work on carriers either.
The object of the game is not to keep people from flying and playing.
Good enough reason?
wrongway
-
It's a good idea but the hole in the deck shouldn't stop planes from taking off, because if a runway has wholes in it you can still take off perfectly fine. I would definitely love to see incendiaries for the amount of damage they'd do, but for that same reason they should be perked so we don't have noobs flying around and lighting whatever they feel like on fire. And also for the amount of damage they would cause, otherwise 1 bomber could take out a whole town and it'd be ready for troops.
-
OK, Ace, But tell me, if there is a 10 ft hole in the deck, would you fighter just roll right over it or would it's gear fall in? But if one of the administrators or training corps guys says boo to the hole in the deck idea then OK. And Wrong Way, this differs very little (at least in the effect of the action) than downing all the hangers at a field for 5 or so Min's. I agree with you on the object of the game but hey the getting rid of hangers accomplishes much the same thing only for a longer period of time. Again, if one of the administrators or training corps guys says boo then I'll yield.
-
I'm fine with the bombs we have, they work fine.
-
OK, Ace, But tell me, if there is a 10 ft hole in the deck, would you fighter just roll right over it or would it's gear fall in? But if one of the administrators or training corps guys says boo to the hole in the deck idea then OK.
Nemesis I see what your getting at and it makes sense but for that to happen there would have to be a change in the whole game because then bombers wouldn't take out hangars at a field, they would just bomb the runway so when planes try to take off they hit em and gear brakes off. So overall it's a good idea just needs some tweaking, I'm definitely in favor of the incendiaries though, just have to perk em like I said.
-
They could do either Ace. I was intending this mainly, or more likely only, for use against carriers. The incendary would be used agains towns and ord, fuel, and barracks. And of course the incenday bombs would be perked; one pissed of newb and he could wipe out his own base if he wants to kill someone who insulted him bad enough. And thank you Ace. And I have a question for you; are you newb to the game or just the forum. you sound like it's just to the forum.
-
I have a question for you; are you newb to the game or just the forum. you sound like it's just to the forum.
Just to forum, recently discovered it :O. Been playing AH now for about a year I'd say, top 200 buff score in late arenas. :rock
-
Nice I've been playing for about two years now but my computer restarts whever I try to play ever since, oh say a coulple weeks after christmas. Oh and by the way, score doesn't matter all that much.
-
And Wrong Way, this differs very little (at least in the effect of the action) than downing all the hangers at a field for 5 or so Min's. I agree with you on the object of the game but hey the getting rid of hangers accomplishes much the same thing only for a longer period of time. Again, if one of the administrators or training corps guys says boo then I'll yield.
It's not about killing the hangers. It's about one bomb on a runway shutting down a field, this being a carrier.
You actually can destroy a runway now. The hardness is set at something so astronomical as to make it near impossible but it is a setting. What happens after I have no idea.
wrongway
-
A long time ago, in an arena far far away, craters used to effect aircraft taking off - was quite amusing watching people break their aircraft on them after some mean bastage bombed each end of the runway.
-
What might be interesting would be more specific damage to the carriers we have. Right now, we can take out radar, all the guns, and sink it. What if some or all of the following areas were also able to be damaged BEFORE it sinks:
Elevators (would disable ords... I may be wrong, but I have never seen ords disabled on a CV)
Rudder (task force turns at 1/2 normal rate... this would most likely occur from a torp hit)
Boilers (task force moves at 1/2 speed)
Berthing Compartments (Cant deploy troops)
Im on the fence about damaging the flight deck... and if it were possible, the bombs should have to be well placed, and it should take MUCH more than 1 or 2 of them... AND the carrier should have to be HEAVILY damaged before the flight deck could go down. No... it isnt realistic... but neither are CV's that can launch LVT's and PT boats. The way I look at it, the CV in AH2 doesnt just represent ONE carrier. It represents the CORE of the task force (troop ships, supply ships, etc). So if you want realistic damage, you really have to talk about adding ships to the task force that have the specific functions that the "CV" we have now encompasses... and that is a WHOLE other discussion.
And as for incendiaries, with the exception of towns... I really dont see much difference in using them or the HE we have now... and this is why. There arent a whole lot of wooden structures on the bases. Yes... they are going to start fires, but are they really going to be different than the fires that we we see billowing from the metal hangars, fuel tanks, ammo bunkers, and radar towers we have now? Again... I "think" HTC chose all HE bombs as a compromise, since they have the greatest overall use in the game. After all, if you pump enough cannon or mg rounds into a bunker... it will explode. Its just a representation of the structure taking so much damage that it is temporarily unusable.
And speaking of structures, or abilities in the case of a CV, being temporarily disabled, why not talk about damage control. Sure... the bases get resupplied, the hangars and other buildings get repaired... but why not have damage control that the task force commander OR the "base commander" (new role there... hehe) can allocate. He could say, "No... I dont really care if the barracks are repaired right now, I WANT THOSE HANGARS FIXED ASAP!!!!" Being able to assign repair crews would make a HUGE difference in base attack and defense tactics in my opinion.
Wow... (looks up) Ummm... I kinda went on and on about this huh? Oh well, thats what I think anyway.
-
It's not about killing the hangers. It's about one bomb on a runway shutting down a field, this being a carrier.
You actually can destroy a runway now. The hardness is set at something so astronomical as to make it near impossible but it is a setting. What happens after I have no idea.
wrongway
After you blow it up, it then respawns real quick like. I vaguely remember a thread about destroying runways and the hardness being like 24,785 lbs, but it fixes itself.
Leave these people, they are a lost cause.
-
Give AP bombs to Dive Bombers only so they become more useful
-
Well, craters SHOULD effect rolling aircraft passing thru them... DUH?
Craters should close the wooden flightdeck of a carrier too... LOL!
I guess they did at one time... But there was way too much BOOOOHOOOO..
So they changed it...
Apparently some ppl just can't stand the realities of life as a WWII pilot...
Whatever, The great maker owns this cartoon world we play in,
and he can do whatever he wants with it...
500 and 1000lb'ers would pass thru the flightdeck, whether
they were AP or not!!! LOL! No need for AP bombs!!!
RC
-
It's not about killing the hangers. It's about one bomb on a runway shutting down a field, this being a carrier.
You actually can destroy a runway now. The hardness is set at something so astronomical as to make it near impossible but it is a setting. What happens after I have no idea.
wrongway
You'd barely notice it. The runway object would yield to the perfectly practicable grass terrain that covers the rest of the base.
-
Well, craters SHOULD effect rolling aircraft passing thru them... DUH?
Craters should close the wooden flightdeck of a carrier too... LOL!
I guess they did at one time... But there was way too much BOOOOHOOOO..
So they changed it...
Apparently some ppl just can't stand the realities of life as a WWII pilot...
Whatever, The great maker owns this cartoon world we play in,
and he can do whatever he wants with it...
500 and 1000lb'ers would pass thru the flightdeck, whether
they were AP or not!!! LOL! No need for AP bombs!!!
RC
The realities of a real pilot was 1 life, taxiing, no combat trim, no icons, intrument micromanagement, engine life precautions, strategic attrition, random tech and mechanical failures, bad weather, boring flights, sudden action when you don't expect it, extremely good (boring) or bad (remember 1 life only) odds, freedom greatly reduced by chain of command discipline, etc.
The reality of this game, or any comparable MMO game is that a single salvo of bombs or rockets pretty much closes an airfield. You don't even need to take out the ack. It's a good illustration of the difference between a game and reality. In reality you don't play, you don't leave the enemy any lee way. Reality's objective isn't fun.
-
Yeah, All true Moot...
But IMO, the neccesary "fudging" of the game conditions in the name of playability
has gone a little too far...
RC
-
:x
-
"Friendly" bombs makes same craters as "enemy". Go figure.
-
OK AKP, say the carrier represents the core of a fleet or tg, or whatever you wish to call it. If that is the case then we should add troop carriers, and all other ships it represents so it can be realistic and you can choose the most important target if we get these. It would draw fire away from the carriers as the troop ships would be the most dangerous to a base.
The incendiaries should be able to damage a larger area, while doing less damage to one particular target, or make it so the fire would spread to anything within a set range of the target and once something else is on fire it can spread fire to another target. It would have to spread fairly slowly to be real and you could make it so an airfield cargo crate puts out the fires in the quarter of the town it lands in.
I will start up a damage control thread when I am done. Sabo, that is a good idea, it would get divebombers more use and would be fun. Of course we should probably not add it to the Ju87, that could get kind bothersome if we kept it so it will do area damage within the same range. At the least, special accommodations would have to be made.
And RC, THANK you. I agree the fudging of the rules to accommodate playability has been taken too far lately. We have gotten to the point where we are booign planes because the didn't have a long enough careear, or didn't see action with enough squadrons or crap like that all to keep the game real. While we are saying no to something that would cause the runway to go down for 5 Min's or so (BTW, not a real long amount of time compared to the 30 min a field or hanger stays down and if does the same thing.
Sorry for going on for so long, just answering all questions.
-
Apparently some ppl just can't stand the realities of life as a WWII pilot...
Realities of a WWII pilot. :rofl
You don't spawn in real life. With cratered runways it would take 3 bombs of any size to take down a small airfield, one at each spawn. This is something you simply can't do 'in real life'. That's why there's no cratered runways.
The MA's are simply nothing like WWII combat and were never meant to be. The game is an aerial combat game using accurately modeled WWII aircraft and that is all.
It would be nice to have more flexibility in ordinance options other than General Purpose bombs, though.
-
It would be nice to have more flexibility in ordinance options other than General Purpose bombs, though.
Thank you Motherland. While I disagree with your opinion on the cratered field issue, I think the ord is at least 1/2 the thread, or atleast I intended it to be.
-
Of course there are no spawns in reality... Silly man :rofl
There is no rollin your landing gear thru craters without any effect either.... :rofl
Actually, on our fixed concrete fields, in time of war, planes would be scattered all over the place.. In
earthen revetments, covered w camo nets... You'd have to Taxi to a runway, or go for it across the grass anyway...
Solution? a random spawn selection for aircraft, puts you on pavement at a random location on the field...
No auto takeoff available... Taxi, pick your own line on the grass, between the gunpits and craters, roll dice, and go!
Much like the GV spawn, random within the given area... Then, they can't "crater the spawn"... But the cratered
runways WILL effect those "gang of baboon takeoffs".. <- (loose quote from a game buddy, while watching
defenders taking off en masse) Always cracks me up! LOL!
Or, are ya sayin that, craters SHOULDN'T have any effect at all? If so, than we differ in opinion!
Turn on friendly collisions, and turn off killshooter too!!! but thats another topic..LOL!
RC
-
OK AKP, say the carrier represents the core of a fleet or tg, or whatever you wish to call it. If that is the case then we should add troop carriers, and all other ships it represents so it can be realistic and you can choose the most important target if we get these. It would draw fire away from the carriers as the troop ships would be the most dangerous to a base.
I agree 100% with adding more ships to the task group, (former squid) but the whole way a TG operates has to change along with it. Just not sure if that will happen.
The incendiaries should be able to damage a larger area, while doing less damage to one particular target, or make it so the fire would spread to anything within a set range of the target and once something else is on fire it can spread fire to another target. It would have to spread fairly slowly to be real and you could make it so an airfield cargo crate puts out the fires in the quarter of the town it lands in.
Realistic... but cumbersome. Again... not too many wooden buildings for the fire to spread to across the concrete pads. For incendiaries to be effective (and realistic) in game, they would need to remodel the small airfields to look like remote airfields... with tents, dirt runways, wooden shacks, and like RipChord929 said, planes would need to be parked out on the field. I dont recall a whole lot of heavy bombers being able to take off or land at those fields either. So that too would require major changes to be realistic. Sorry, while I like your eagerness to bring more into the game, I just have a hard time with firebombs doing much to a cement and steel base.
I will start up a damage control thread when I am done.
Awesome! While I do wish there was a way to allocate repairs, it should be balanced if it happens... if you put everything on fixing the hangar... nothing else gets fixed in the meantime.
(EDIT)
99.9% of what we put in the wishlist isnt going to make it into the game. It doesnt mean we shouldnt ask, epsecially if its a request that will make the game more "immersible". But the way I look at it. I really like the game as it is now. If some cool stuff gets added along the way... and some of it was OUR ideas... so much the better! But I dont think they are going to reinvent the game just to add a few things that would make it a little more realistic.
Remember, all of that stuff we are asking for requires coding. Heavy coding eats up CPU cycles and lags the servers. Its not just models and textures. Every time a bomb goes off, a script runs. The more variables that script has to check, the more time and memory it takes to do it.
-
Well, craters SHOULD effect rolling aircraft passing thru them... DUH?
Craters should close the wooden flightdeck of a carrier too... LOL!
I guess they did at one time... But there was way too much BOOOOHOOOO..
So they changed it...
Apparently some ppl just can't stand the realities of life as a WWII pilot...
Whatever, The great maker owns this cartoon world we play in,
and he can do whatever he wants with it...
500 and 1000lb'ers would pass thru the flightdeck, whether
they were AP or not!!! LOL! No need for AP bombs!!!
RC
If cratering were allowed
Craters on a runway should only effect heavy bombers as during WWII they were the only ones that NEEDED a paved hardened runway to take off.
Quite often fighters took off from dirt runways. In some cases open fields. Cratering them was pointless as they could easily be fixed by simply filling them with more dirt.
the only changes I'd really like to see to bombing are more aesthetics then anything else. Damaged CV leaving an oil slick for miles. perhaps even reducing its available speed for a period of time.Damaged support ships listing
Also secondary explosions would be nice.
-
After you blow it up, it then respawns real quick like. I vaguely remember a thread about destroying runways and the hardness being like 24,785 lbs, but it fixes itself.
Leave these people, they are a lost cause.
125,000 pounds and downtime is 1 minute