Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Banshee7 on October 12, 2009, 09:27:44 AM
-
Hello all:
After using the search function with several different key words, I was unable to find any thread or post that was worth noting. I DID, however, find a few things remotely similar in context.
The thought of GV fires struck me this morning. Something similar to the effect of fuel fires in aircraft. Once they ignite they have a set time to end sortie or risk getting blown into a million pieces :devil. I'm not exactly sure how it would work, but isn't there a possibility of a tank/wirble/etc... catching fire when hit in the right spot?
This was just something I had thought of. What's your thoughts?
#S#
Banshee7
-
:aok
-
In theory:
Where there is smoke there is fire.
I like.
-
In theory:
Where there is smoke there is fire.
I like.
No because smoke indicates damaged parts not that you are about to explode.
-
IIRC the only tank that had the real bad habit of going up like a meth lab was the Shermans.
-
Maybe they could model as they do planes. For example the Sherman could be the "zekes" of GVs. All GVs have the possibility of catching on fire, but some are more likely than others?
-
you can also bail from a burning airplane
-
this would be really cool thing so see.
+1
-
Why not? :aok
-
Why model something like this when your going to have a cartoon death from the next shot before the fire can get you?
-
Not necessarily. Just because they hit you once doesn't mean they'll hit you again...especially if you're on the move.
-
:aok
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/3598132162_8eb5ec9d14.jpg)
-
IIRC the only tank that had the real bad habit of going up like a meth lab was the Shermans.
lol yeah thats sad but true but +1 on the idea
-
I would rather have when a tank goes pop that they leave a burning hulk for 30-60 seconds. :t
-
Gasoline powered wasnt always "best". Maybe in your '66 Chevy it was. But not in your tank.
-
honestly the whole concept reaks of disatisfaction that you can no longer steal kills on GVs by strafing with low cal........ so in compromise you want to be able to just start a fire
interesting way of getting around a good change to the game
GVs are easy enough to kill as it is without adding "fuel to the fire"
what next?
It should be easy to start a fire in a hanger and destroy it as well.......... instead of 2500# of damage to kill a hanger.......... just a short burst of strafing rounds inside and a fire starts which will consume the hanger and destroy it?
or more definitively 1 round in a fuel or ord bunker destroys it.............
-
honestly the whole concept reaks of disatisfaction that you can no longer steal kills on GVs by strafing with low cal........ so in compromise you want to be able to just start a fire
Here's where you are wrong Mr. Batch, sir. I am not one of those, nor have I ever been, that strafes tanks with machine gun rounds in hopes that a friendly GV will kill them but give me the kill. I disliked it when others did it while I was in a GV, so I wouldn't do it to someone else. I don't strafe them at all unless it's an M3 close to town or I'm in an Il-2 which actually has the ability to kill tanks.
Honestly, this whole concept is from the thought of an added effect that would maybe even more variety to this game. Don't try to twist my words into something they're not.
what next?
It should be easy to start a fire in a hanger and destroy it as well.......... instead of 2500# of damage to kill a hanger.......... just a short burst of strafing rounds inside and a fire starts which will consume the hanger and destroy it?
or more definitively 1 round in a fuel or ord bunker destroys it.............
Actually, Mr. Batch, contrary to your thoughts, I am all for strengthening hangars and ammo bunkers. Again, this is not a "I'm having problems doing this, so please, HTC, make it easier for me" type threads. And I am still puzzled as to why you are so inclined to think it is.