Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tilt on August 10, 2011, 10:23:00 AM
-
Its strange to me that a couple of inches of steel on a tank is impervious to 20mm cannon fire yet a the few feet of concrete and banked soil over and around an ammo bunker can be so easily penetrated to effect its complete destruction.................. .. by a straffing attack.
I wish HTC would spend shed loads of hours properly modelling the ammo bunker.............. or maybe turn the hardness up a tad to require serious ordinance to effect its destruction.
-
+1 IMO a 1000# bomb and only with direct hit should be able to take out a ammo bunker. They are steel re enforced concrete.
DHawk
-
I can hear the GV guys screaming in protest already. :D
But I agree. +1
-
Can't argue with that. I'll give it a plus 1. :aok
-
I can hear the GV guys screaming in protest already. :D
But I agree. +1
Naybe they'll say the ords bunkers are being flown as fighters to much and they should only be in fighter hangars with F1 only. ;)
-
direct hit from a 500lbs bomb could knock out an ammo bunker. depends on the type and design. using anything less than an 88mm ap round shouldn't cause anything more than a few pock marks. 8, 12, 14, 16 inch artillery might be able to penetrate with a couple of rounds.
could be a game play consideration too... :headscratch:
-
Its strange to me that a couple of inches of steel on a tank is impervious to 20mm cannon fire yet a the few feet of concrete and banked soil over and around an ammo bunker can be so easily penetrated to effect its complete destruction.................. .. by a straffing attack.
I wish HTC would spend shed loads of hours properly modelling the ammo bunker.............. or maybe turn the hardness up a tad to require serious ordinance to effect its destruction.
when i have no rockets I'll use the .50's on my pony. they go down in one pass. ords need to be more protected by ack. I wish they were placed at random on a base too.
semp
-
direct hit from a 500lbs bomb could knock out an ammo bunker. depends on the type and design. using anything less than an 88mm ap round shouldn't cause anything more than a few pock marks. 8, 12, 14, 16 inch artillery might be able to penetrate with a couple of rounds.
could be a game play consideration too... :headscratch:
Now, by using 8" and "couple of rounds" in the same sentence, would you be implying that one shot from the triple 8" on the cruiser would be able to take it ou? (On the rare occasion that a CV is shelling an airfield)
-
Now, by using 8" and "couple of rounds" in the same sentence, would you be implying that one shot from the triple 8" on the cruiser would be able to take it ou? (On the rare occasion that a CV is shelling an airfield)
you forgot the words "might be able to". depending on the type of bunker and the way it was constructed, 3 rounds of 8 inch ap on the roof of a bunker could take it out. they would have to be pretty precise hits and the roof of the bunker would have to be exposed, not covered by several feet of dirt.
-
That's true, sorry. Missed the "might be able to" in that sentence.
Another thing: surely some ammunition bunkers must have been underground, at least partly? In that case, could a 4000 lb bomb take that out? Or would HTC have to add the 1000 lber? :devil
-
That's true, sorry. Missed the "might be able to" in that sentence.
Another thing: surely some ammunition bunkers must have been underground, at least partly? In that case, could a 4000 lb bomb take that out? Or would HTC have to add the 1000 lber? :devil
PSSSSST :noid
We have the 1000lb bomb in game...
don't tell anyone though
-
could be a game play consideration too... :headscratch:
It is. All object's settings are dictated by gameplay considerations, with relatively little hardcore "realism" to it. Just think of how powerful guns are in this game vs bombs when it comes to killing structures.
-
It is. All object's settings are dictated by gameplay considerations, with relatively little hardcore "realism" to it. Just think of how powerful guns are in this game vs bombs when it comes to killing structures.
So... the gameplay is better because it is not realistic? I must be missing something here... :headscratch:
-
A single fighter with 2 500lbers and 6 HVARs shouldn't be able to de-ord and kill dar on a large field either. Even though I do it myself quite frequently.
-
So... the gameplay is better because it is not realistic?
Overall: Yes.
Ah is a fighting game, that's all it's really about. All stuff beyond that is just a way to create combat, give players a purpose to fight and create many different types of battles to keep it interesting. Realistic towns & bases would be almost impossible to capture in a reasonable time frame. Actually they wouldn't been captured by simply killing a bunch of buildings and dropping 10 troopers. Bases would not be operating again after 15 minutes, but on the other hand they would not be that easy to close in the first place. Realistic gameplay would also mean we would have to fly 10 or more sectors into combat, and planes would rarely have that much impact on ground war as they do have now.
You can't make the game (and that's what it is) fully realistic while retaining the fun.
-
I don't think hardening the ord bunkers would handicap gameplay. Dar and fuel a 250lber would kill, ord bunkers should require a 1000lber and not 250. It would help eliminate the suicide porkers.
-
I don't think hardening the ord bunkers would handicap gameplay. Dar and fuel a 250lber would kill, ord bunkers should require a 1000lber and not 250. It would help eliminate the suicide porkers.
And the possible consequences for gameplay balance?
-
I don't think it would unbalance gameplay at all. It would still only take 1 pilot to take down ord at a small base. Two pilots or two single runs by one player for medium and large airfields. Theoretically speaking I could take a single p-47 d-40 with 10 HVARs and 3 500lbers and kill all 4 ords the dar and 4 ack guns without even going to guns. With luck I could deack the entire base as well with a full gun load and most likely have enough rounds left to deack town most of the way. Even though this sim isn't 100% realistic, the ease that one can neuter a base is borderline arcade-like.
-
+1
I've always wished that Ammo Bunkers would actually be bunkers and thus be rather hard to kill. Their weakness adds an odd imbalance to the game. Think of it this way, there is only 1 way to disable fighters and that's killing the fighter hangers. However, on the flip side there are 2 ways to disable bombers, 1. is to drop the bomber hangers, 2. simply drop the Ammo Bunkers and tada you've grounded most bombers.
-
Also add a large explosion when the ord bunkers are destroyed as a result of the stored ordinance being detonated.
-
Also add a large explosion when the ord bunkers are destroyed as a result of the stored ordinance being detonated.
Yes to massive secondary explosions for both ammo and fuel bunkers!
-
+1 from someone who regularly porks them with 4 x .50 cals.
-
PSSSSST :noid
We have the 1000lb bomb in game...
don't tell anyone though
:rofl Sorry, meant the 10000 lber.
Theoretically speaking I could take a single p-47 d-40 with 10 HVARs and 3 500lbers and kill all 4 ords the dar and 4 ack guns without even going to guns.
Just curious-- why not 2x1000 lbs, plus the 500?
-
Well then..
I want auto ack turned off at un-manned bases until there is at least one person in a manned gun.
This way, I can come haul-arsing up to the ord bunkers in my jeep and toss a satchel charge or perhaps a lit, 1/4 stick of dynamite in the door.
:joystick:
-
I don't think it would unbalance gameplay at all.
That is where you are wrong.
So at 1000lbs per bunker, it would take a single pilot to drop 4 of them?
Last I recall that requires heavy level bombers to get 4000lbs or ord per plane. I think they are too easy to strafe, but upping the lbs required would definitely change base take, base pork, and other aspects of gameplay. For gameplay balance and the ability to change the battle along a front or even just at one base (standard for stopping base defenders from bombing your GVs is to kill their ord!)
You may not like it to lose the ord, but it's lose-able for a reason. Just up from another field. If you're upping heavy you don't need to take off 20mi away. You can risk taking off 40mi away. You're still flying hundreds of miles an hour.
-
That is where you are wrong.
So at 1000lbs per bunker, it would take a single pilot to drop 4 of them?
Last I recall that requires heavy level bombers to get 4000lbs or ord per plane. I think they are too easy to strafe, but upping the lbs required would definitely change base take, base pork, and other aspects of gameplay. For gameplay balance and the ability to change the battle along a front or even just at one base (standard for stopping base defenders from bombing your GVs is to kill their ord!)
You may not like it to lose the ord, but it's lose-able for a reason. Just up from another field. If you're upping heavy you don't need to take off 20mi away. You can risk taking off 40mi away. You're still flying hundreds of miles an hour.
I'm not talking about bombers porking ords. I mean the single dora that comes in and porks ords then bails. With a fully loaded P-47 you could get 3 bunkers and damage the fourth. Two 1000lbers (one per bunker), One 500 plus 6 HVARS for third bunker, thus leaving 4 HVARS to damage but not drop fourth. You could strafe the last bunker, but it would require more work than a 2 second pass. As it is right now I can drop all 4 bunkers with a pony with 2 500s and 6 HVARs and not use guns at all. It's too easy. Suicide porking would require more than one run or more than one pilot.
-
You may not like it to lose the ord, but it's lose-able for a reason.
I tend to believe its hardness is set thru anachronism rather than reason............ as you say porking the ord is the first step to giving GV's the advantage when considering base suppression. The tactic should be achievable IMO but not so easily as it is now. To model stuff so far from reality and argue that its a game play feature is a retrograde step IMO. It just flags up that the game play model needs some attention.
May as well argue that the TigerII is too well armoured and make it more destroyable.
Armour was vulnerable to heavy ordinance, bunkered heavy ordinance was never so easily attritable as it is in game. If making the ammo bunker hardness more realistic un balances the game play model then lets look at re balancing thru more realism rather than less.(multiple ways this could be done)
Actually as AH adds heavier armour to the game the arguement for harder bunkers actually supports the old game play model in this respect.
-
I'm pretty sure ammo bunkers are not "porked" I'm going to venture a guess that it's for game-play purposes. Losing Ords at a field under attack promotes the use of ground support aircraft and vehicles at the defending base. This gives a variety of aircraft in flight as well as vehicles, making for a better gaming experience.
Flame on :(
-
I'm pretty sure ammo bunkers are not "porked" I'm going to venture a guess that it's for game-play purposes. Losing Ords at a field under attack promotes the use of ground support aircraft and vehicles at the defending base. This gives a variety of aircraft in flight as well as vehicles, making for a better gaming experience.
Flame on :(
so increasing the hardness to require something like a 500lbs bomb would not be in the interest of "game play"? think maybe it might improve the fight for a base a bit more than it is right now where a few 20mm rounds can knock out what should be a reinforced structure?
-
I'm for it as long as its given a weak point like the door. Drop a bomb close to the front door it goes boom. Tank round hits the front door it goes boom.
-
wouldent it just be easier to make smaller guns riccochet much like they do against ship guns? or the deck of the cv? say 30m+ breaks threw on aircraft and tanks need to use AP to effectively take em out? or to just keep it simple any round under 30mm cant break threw?
-
Since some of you are obviously still looking for an advantage by trying to force a rule change, how about assigning an ENY value to bombs of differing sizes. :bolt:
-
Since some of you are obviously still looking for an advantage by trying to force a rule change, how about assigning an ENY value to bombs of differing sizes. :bolt:
advantage? rule change? :headscratch:
don't you think it's an advantage to be able to knock out a structure with machine guns that should be at least as hard as a tiger tank?
-
advantage? rule change? :headscratch:
don't you think it's an advantage to be able to knock out a structure with machine guns that should be at least as hard as a tiger tank?
Harder to breach than a nun's panties?
-
Just a quick thought -
One ord that we don't have is the US 1600 lb AP bomb; all we have is GP bombs. Hardening the ammo bunkers would make them much harder to pork but much more valuable to do so. Yes, I know the 1600 lb was primarily for anti-ship ops but it seems it would make a mess of reinforced concrete.
I like the general idea of differentiating the ords based on target requirement.
-
And the possible consequences for gameplay balance?
More med bombers to shoot at?!
-
:D On the subject of Medium Bombers...
B-26!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
:D On the subject of Medium Bombers...
B-26!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hell yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh