Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: W7LPNRICK on February 05, 2010, 05:35:37 AM
-
What do you guys think about a dirt landing strip at V-bases ans a re-arming pad. We had a plowed field on the old maps. I landed there regularly.After a long haul, it's better than flying home. :aok
-
You can already safely land at Vbases, so I guess this part is just an eye-candy wish?
And a strict No! to rearm pads for planes at Vbases from me.
-
Rearm pads for aircraft @ V bases is a bad idea and the runways are not needed. :salute
-
I like the idea of a rearm pad on a vbase. Especially on the maps that have the air bases spread out by 7 or more v bases.
-
Rearm pads for aircraft @ V bases is a bad idea and the runways are not needed. :salute
I could not have said it better! :aok
-
I'd like to see all the small airfields have dirt runways...and depending on the terrain, maybe some of the medium airfields too.
What about if an aircraft could re-arm/re-fuel at a vbase if the plane was close to the base and someone brought supplies to it? :D
-
As Lusche said, "You can already safely land at Vbases..." As for the rearm pad at the Vbase, that aircraft can use, No. It would be nice, however, if there were rearm pads just for vehicles at Vbases, Ports and Airfields. I would also like to see more and/or larger rearm pads at the fields, which would depend on field size. On a large field, one would expect larger rearm pads? :headscratch: Especially for the Heavy Bombers...
gyrene81
What if the dirt runways for the small airfield would be dependent on location and/or terrain? The same would apply to the medium airfields as well. Deeper into territory, closer to the HQ and Capitol (it's what I'm calling the city now), the small fields would have a concrete strip, but as you move farther away, you start to see them convert to dirt strips. On maps with a lot of water, all small and medium strips would be dirt with the exception of any that are on the same land mass as the HQ.
What about restricting plane size? You cannot up any Heavy or Medium Bombers from a small strip, though you CAN land/rearm them there? Small Airfield: Fighters and Light Bombers; Medium Airfield: Medium Bombers; Large Airfield: Heavy/Strategic Bombers. Though the C-47 and Ju-52(if it ever gets added), could still up from a small field. There would be nothing wrong with landing at a small field, rearm, then re-up from it. You just can't spawn a heavy or medium bomber from there. What do you think about Fighter Fields, an airfield that strictly spawns fighters? These could be tied to the Capitol and HQ. They wouldn't be capture-able and would be quite small, maybe 1 or 2 fighter hangers and a rearm pad. This has been brought up before, just tossing it out again as I don't remember the reaction to it.
-
gyrene81
What if the dirt runways for the small airfield would be dependent on location and/or terrain? The same would apply to the medium airfields as well. Deeper into territory, closer to the HQ and Capitol (it's what I'm calling the city now), the small fields would have a concrete strip, but as you move farther away, you start to see them convert to dirt strips. On maps with a lot of water, all small and medium strips would be dirt with the exception of any that are on the same land mass as the HQ.
What about restricting plane size? You cannot up any Heavy or Medium Bombers from a small strip, though you CAN land/rearm them there? Small Airfield: Fighters and Light Bombers; Medium Airfield: Medium Bombers; Large Airfield: Heavy/Strategic Bombers. Though the C-47 and Ju-52(if it ever gets added), could still up from a small field. There would be nothing wrong with landing at a small field, rearm, then re-up from it. You just can't spawn a heavy or medium bomber from there. What do you think about Fighter Fields, an airfield that strictly spawns fighters? These could be tied to the Capitol and HQ. They wouldn't be capture-able and would be quite small, maybe 1 or 2 fighter hangers and a rearm pad. This has been brought up before, just tossing it out again as I don't remember the reaction to it.
Yeah now you're talking. :aok
-
What do you guys think about a dirt landing strip at V-bases ans a re-arming pad. We had a plowed field on the old maps. I landed there regularly.After a long haul, it's better than flying home. :aok
Did I miss something? When did Tanks start needing Runways?
It's a Vehicle Base for a reason. Otherwise it would be a Small Airfield
-
gyrene81
What if the dirt runways for the small airfield would be dependent on location and/or terrain? The same would apply to the medium airfields as well. Deeper into territory, closer to the HQ and Capitol (it's what I'm calling the city now), the small fields would have a concrete strip, but as you move farther away, you start to see them convert to dirt strips. On maps with a lot of water, all small and medium strips would be dirt with the exception of any that are on the same land mass as the HQ.
What about restricting plane size? You cannot up any Heavy or Medium Bombers from a small strip, though you CAN land/rearm them there? Small Airfield: Fighters and Light Bombers; Medium Airfield: Medium Bombers; Large Airfield: Heavy/Strategic Bombers. Though the C-47 and Ju-52(if it ever gets added), could still up from a small field. There would be nothing wrong with landing at a small field, rearm, then re-up from it. You just can't spawn a heavy or medium bomber from there. What do you think about Fighter Fields, an airfield that strictly spawns fighters? These could be tied to the Capitol and HQ. They wouldn't be capture-able and would be quite small, maybe 1 or 2 fighter hangers and a rearm pad. This has been brought up before, just tossing it out again as I don't remember the reaction to it.
I like it. Personally tho, I'd like to see the runways oriented better. I ran across a small airfield oriented so that both ends of the runway ran smack dab into hills. One thing tho, maybe a dirt strip isn't a bad idea for landings (thinking of C-47s and such)
-
Rearm pads for aircraft @ V bases is a bad idea and the runways are not needed. :salute
You guys said no, but didn't elaborate...? :headscratch:
-
I could not have said it better! :aok
Not runways, just dirt strips.
-
As Lusche said, "You can already safely land at Vbases..." As for the rearm pad at the Vbase, that aircraft can use, No. It would be nice, however, if there were rearm pads just for vehicles at Vbases, Ports and Airfields. I would also like to see more and/or larger rearm pads at the fields, which would depend on field size. On a large field, one would expect larger rearm pads? :headscratch: Especially for the Heavy Bombers...
gyrene81
What if the dirt runways for the small airfield would be dependent on location and/or terrain? The same would apply to the medium airfields as well. Deeper into territory, closer to the HQ and Capitol (it's what I'm calling the city now), the small fields would have a concrete strip, but as you move farther away, you start to see them convert to dirt strips. On maps with a lot of water, all small and medium strips would be dirt with the exception of any that are on the same land mass as the HQ.
What about restricting plane size? You cannot up any Heavy or Medium Bombers from a small strip, though you CAN land/rearm them there? Small Airfield: Fighters and Light Bombers; Medium Airfield: Medium Bombers; Large Airfield: Heavy/Strategic Bombers. Though the C-47 and Ju-52(if it ever gets added), could still up from a small field. There would be nothing wrong with landing at a small field, rearm, then re-up from it. You just can't spawn a heavy or medium bomber from there. What do you think about Fighter Fields, an airfield that strictly spawns fighters? These could be tied to the Capitol and HQ. They wouldn't be capture-able and would be quite small, maybe 1 or 2 fighter hangers and a rearm pad. This has been brought up before, just tossing it out again as I don't remember the reaction to it.
Interesting...not sure, would like to see a trial before switching everything. :salute
-
Why not just add a fuel truck to the game? more realistic.
such as Kfz.305 opel blitz
No to the rearms on vbases, but add this and maybe it could pave the way for towed artillery
no hijack intended,just sayin.....................
-
And with the rearm pad, we should be able to load tanks in C47's and fly them to the battle field
-
And with the rearm pad, we should be able to load tanks in C47's and fly them to the battle field
A tank in a C-47? :rofl :lol :rofl :lol you're joking right?
-
And with the rearm pad, we should be able to load tanks in C47's and fly them to the battle field
They put jeeps in c-47's and gliders, but wwII never saw airlift tanks...I don't believe. :D
-
Yea, your probably correct on that statement. On the same note, Im sure there were many vehicle bases in the real war that were capable of rearming aircraft
-
Yea, your probably correct on that statement. On the same note, Im sure there were many vehicle bases in the real war that were capable of rearming aircraft
Ehhh...not really. It was more like fuel and ammo depots behind the front lines in defendable positions for the ground vehicles and either grass/dirt or steel grid runways on actual airfields depending on location. Some front line airfields had ground attack vehicles...Jeeps with M2s...Half tracks with various gun mounts...sometimes a couple of tanks...depended on the country and the location of the airfield...if there were ground attack vehicles there were grunts as well.
-
When discussing this idea in game I have had many positive responses. Not just yes, or I like that, but some good discussion about that and adjoining ideas. It needs to be "Tossed around a bit". :salute IMO :D