Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Midway on March 31, 2012, 05:42:38 PM
-
Since vbases have ords and fuel. Although the grass landing might be rough, but I'd take the risk to get on a rearm pad by the FH. :aok
:uhoh
-
Since vbases have ords and fuel. Although the grass landing might be rough, but I'd take the risk to get on a rearm pad by the FH. :aok
:uhoh
How do you think your Spitfire will run using the crap GV fuel? The VH will have .303 and .50 ammo, but no go on the 20x110 ammo for your Hispanos. Bombs and rockets are right out.
-
How do you think your Spitfire will run using the crap GV fuel? The VH will have .303 and .50 ammo, but no go on the 20x110 ammo for your Hispanos. Bombs and rockets are right out.
No reason trucks can't bring proper fuel and ords for aeroplanes to the vbase since it has an FH already and several ord bunkers. A rearm pad is not much to add. :pray
-
My view is that all re arm pads should go and be replaced by ac supplies (Fuel and ammo) that can only be transported (by road or goon) from Air fields
-
No reason trucks can't bring proper fuel and ords for aeroplanes to the vbase since it has an FH already and several ord bunkers. A rearm pad is not much to add. :pray
It has a small hangar for Fi156s, not a Fighter Hangar. Why would they haul 100 octane fuel, bombs, rockets and airplane ammo to a vehicle base? It makes no sense and is bad from a gameplay standpoint.
This is a horrible idea.
-
It has a small hangar for Fi156s, not a Fighter Hangar. Why would they haul 100 octane fuel, bombs, rockets and airplane ammo to a vehicle base? It makes no sense and is bad from a gameplay standpoint.
This is a horrible idea.
Because they're building rearm pads next to the FHs and because military truck drivers do what they're told. :rolleyes:
and because it will help the war effort and reduce in-transit time. :rolleyes:
:)
-
Because they're building rearm pads next to the FHs and because military truck drivers do what they're told. :rolleyes:
and because it will help the war effort and reduce in-transit time. :rolleyes:
:)
None of that makes sense at all.
-
None of that makes sense at all.
:headscratch: :cry :frown: ...... :headscratch:
:) :old: :airplane: :joystick: :banana:
-
I dont care about it making sense, or that its "gamey" (this is a game right) I'd love to have rearm pads at Vbases.
-
yeah, i want the a26 too, perhaps some day :).
semp
-
Since vbases have ords and fuel. Although the grass landing might be rough, but I'd take the risk to get on a rearm pad by the FH. :aok
There are plenty of examples of aircraft operating off of a big open field (no concrete runway) in every theatre, by every side in the war. You truck in your fuel and ords and either put it in a tent or dig a hole for it to live in until you need it. Instead of having a re-arm pad at a vh, I would just rather have it that aircraft could consume vehicle supplies to trigger a 30-second rearm cycle. What this would do is let you send vehicles full of supplies forward and position them at some open spot to let friendlies come in and rearm. It might create some interesting situations if done via LVT on an island near your target.
-
Nope.
-
There are plenty of examples of aircraft operating off of a big open field (no concrete runway) in every theatre, by every side in the war. You truck in your fuel and ords and either put it in a tent or dig a hole for it to live in until you need it. Instead of having a re-arm pad at a vh, I would just rather have it that aircraft could consume vehicle supplies to trigger a 30-second rearm cycle. What this would do is let you send vehicles full of supplies forward and position them at some open spot to let friendlies come in and rearm. It might create some interesting situations if done via LVT on an island near your target.
Those were airfields though, not vehicle bases, and the lack of formal runways means nothing. High performance fighters cannot use the fuel that vehicles use.
Ok, compromise. You can rearm at vehicle fields, but you have to wait for the proper fuel, ammo if appropriate and ordnance to be trucked in. Say, about six hours before rearming is complete.
-
Those were airfields though, not vehicle bases, and the lack of formal runways means nothing. High performance fighters cannot use the fuel that vehicles use.
Ok, compromise. You can rearm at vehicle fields, but you have to wait for the proper fuel, ammo if appropriate and ordnance to be trucked in. Say, about six hours before rearming is complete.
:huh An afront to the highly efficient military planning machine! :mad:
How about compromise? VH ream pad takes 60 seconds instead of 30. :)
-
Hey guys, Midway has a point.
We should all know that a crack pilot can always find a place to refuel. Remember when Clint Eastwood stole the Firefox Hypersonic Stealth Fighter from the Soviets? He had no trouble refueling over the polar ice cap.
(http://d1g4sq00ps2bp3.cloudfront.net/entertainment/20016_5.jpg)
-
Hey guys, Midway has a point.
We should all know that a crack pilot can always find a place to refuel. Remember when Clint Eastwood stole the Firefox Hypersonic Stealth Fighter from the Soviets? He had no trouble refueling over the polar ice cap.
(http://d1g4sq00ps2bp3.cloudfront.net/entertainment/20016_5.jpg)
:aok :salute :rock
-
I think you should blow up if you land gear down over 150mph 50% of the time with the percentage being lowered as your touch down speed decreases to where you would die only 10% of the time for a full stall landing.
-
I think you should blow up if you land gear down over 150mph 50% of the time with the percentage being lowered as your touch down speed decreases to where you would die only 10% of the time for a full stall landing.
:O Hijack!!! That's another wish! :bhead
Now... about that rearm pad at the vbase.... :headscratch: :D
-
I think you should blow up if you land gear down over 150mph 50% of the time with the percentage being lowered as your touch down speed decreases to where you would die only 10% of the time for a full stall landing.
Clint Eastwood would never allow this thread to be hijacked with mumbo jumbo about landing speeds.
A crack pilot would find some ice to land on to reduce friction on the tires.
-
:huh An afront to the highly efficient military planning machine! :mad:
How about compromise? VH ream pad takes 60 seconds instead of 30. :)
Nope, six hours or you won't get my support.
-
+1
-
Yes to vbase rearms but only for fighters over 15 eny and only guns and fuel.
-
Ice generates a lot of heat when friction is applied though....aka blowin' yo tias lol
-
High performance fighters cannot use the fuel that vehicles use.
The late war allied hi-altitude monsters using 150 octane might not be using fuel that vehicles use, but there are plenty of other aircraft using pretty ordinary gasoline. German B4 is 87 octane, and you can find plenty of pictures out there of them refueling 109s from drums or performing extensive maintenance (engine pulls, etc) on open fields in Russia. You can find late war pictures of 190Ds operating from roads, and parked under trees getting refueled.
http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.com/2010/01/messerschmitt-bf-109.html (http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.com/2010/01/messerschmitt-bf-109.html) has some lovely pictures of 109s being refueled in the desert from a pile of fuel drums.
The Soviets were probably the masters of operating in primitive airfields early on - using frozen lakes, packed snow, etc. to create airstrips - and successfully refueled and rearmed under conditions vastly more difficult than any we are discussing here. The USMC did the same thing in the Pacific - operating on strips that were literally bulldozed out of jungle and then flying in fuel, ammo, and parts for the fighters in goons.
The real question for me is not whether we should have a rearm pad at a v-base, but whether we should allow resupply in the field and how it should work. Frankly, I think that vehicles getting rearmed and repaired instantly in the field by a jeep with supplies is way too gamey - if the aircraft have to wait 30 seconds for re-arm at a pad, the vehicles ought to have to do the same thing (wait 30 seconds for repairs and ammo) in the field. If vehicle supplies work for tanks, they ought to work the same way for planes.
-
The late war allied hi-altitude monsters using 150 octane might not be using fuel that vehicles use, but there are plenty of other aircraft using pretty ordinary gasoline. German B4 is 87 octane, and you can find plenty of pictures out there of them refueling 109s from drums or performing extensive maintenance (engine pulls, etc) on open fields in Russia. You can find late war pictures of 190Ds operating from roads, and parked under trees getting refueled.
http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.com/2010/01/messerschmitt-bf-109.html (http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.com/2010/01/messerschmitt-bf-109.html) has some lovely pictures of 109s being refueled in the desert from a pile of fuel drums.
The Soviets were probably the masters of operating in primitive airfields early on - using frozen lakes, packed snow, etc. to create airstrips - and successfully refueled and rearmed under conditions vastly more difficult than any we are discussing here. The USMC did the same thing in the Pacific - operating on strips that were literally bulldozed out of jungle and then flying in fuel, ammo, and parts for the fighters in goons.
The real question for me is not whether we should have a rearm pad at a v-base, but whether we should allow resupply in the field and how it should work. Frankly, I think that vehicles getting rearmed and repaired instantly in the field by a jeep with supplies is way too gamey - if the aircraft have to wait 30 seconds for re-arm at a pad, the vehicles ought to have to do the same thing (wait 30 seconds for repairs and ammo) in the field. If vehicle supplies work for tanks, they ought to work the same way for planes.
:x :banana: :banana: :banana: :aok
-
Stuff
RAF fighters last use 87 octane in the Battle of France. By the Battle of Britain, Fighter Command had switched over to 100 octane. 150 octane shows up in 1944, and not only for your high altitude monsters, Mosquito Mk VIs, Mustang Mk IVs, Spitfire LF.Mk IXs, Spitfire Mk XIVs and Tempest Mk Vs were all fueled with 150 octane to go after V-1s, which flew at about 2,000ft.
The fact is that a Spitfire, P-51, P-47, Typhoon, P-38 or Mosquito will not run very well, if at all, on the fuel that was put into jeeps.
-
RAF fighters last use 87 octane in the Battle of France. By the Battle of Britain, Fighter Command had switched over to 100 octane. 150 octane shows up in 1944, and not only for your high altitude monsters, Mosquito Mk VIs, Mustang Mk IVs, Spitfire LF.Mk IXs, Spitfire Mk XIVs and Tempest Mk Vs were all fueled with 150 octane to go after V-1s, which flew at about 2,000ft.
The fact is that a Spitfire, P-51, P-47, Typhoon, P-38 or Mosquito will not run very well, if at all, on the fuel that was put into jeeps.
Maybe not, but that never stopped the Luftwaffe from running on 87 octane. I doubt the USMC's Wildcats or Corsairs used less than premium gas either, but they certainly managed to get it into the jungle to get them refueled when needed.
If someone wants to run vehicle supplies out to an empty field to resupply aircraft, I don't see where it harms this game.
-
RAF fighters last use 87 octane in the Battle of France. By the Battle of Britain, Fighter Command had switched over to 100 octane. 150 octane shows up in 1944, and not only for your high altitude monsters, Mosquito Mk VIs, Mustang Mk IVs, Spitfire LF.Mk IXs, Spitfire Mk XIVs and Tempest Mk Vs were all fueled with 150 octane to go after V-1s, which flew at about 2,000ft.
The fact is that a Spitfire, P-51, P-47, Typhoon, P-38 or Mosquito will not run very well, if at all, on the fuel that was put into jeeps.
so make it plane specific
and i think most of those planes did not fly with 150 octane all the time
-
I say +1, but only because of the storch. However, I think it should only REARM your fighter (its not a re-fuel pad), and only the guns on your aircraft that share a caliber with one of the GV's.
Basicly the only planes we couldn't rearm would be ones that carry hispanos, russian 20mm, russian 23 or 37mm, russian 12.7mm, 30mm, or specialty weapons such as the 57mm, or 50mm BK.
-
Hey guys, Midway has a point.
We should all know that a crack pilot can always find a place to refuel. Remember when Clint Eastwood stole the Firefox Hypersonic Stealth Fighter from the Soviets? He had no trouble refueling over the polar ice cap.
(http://d1g4sq00ps2bp3.cloudfront.net/entertainment/20016_5.jpg)
I want to know how the helicopter got to the polar ice cap in that picture... :huh
-
I think you should blow up if you land gear down over 150mph 50% of the time with the percentage being lowered as your touch down speed decreases to where you would die only 10% of the time for a full stall landing.
Wow, I had no idea how dangerous it was landing that fast! Just think I saw F4s landing for years in all kinds of weather and
apparently they were only 2 mph from exploding! :rolleyes: :D
http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/f4fp.htm (http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/f4fp.htm)
And this Israeli pilot was obviously hacking, landing at almost 250 in a very broken bird. No explosion though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpwyU30g7rI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpwyU30g7rI)
-
The israeli pilot landed on his wheels.
I was actually at an interview for an apprenticeship at McDonnel Douglas when this occurred and privy to the information.
Did you miss the "gear up" part of my comment?
What percentage of gear up ditches in WWII were able to fly again?
-
Did you miss the "gear up" part of my comment?
:D see quote below, I know I couldn't find 'gear up'.
I think you should blow up if you land gear down over 150mph 50% of the time with the percentage being lowered as your touch down speed decreases to where you would die only 10% of the time for a full stall landing.
In AcesHigh if you attempt to belly land with the Gear Up at over 150mph, 100% of the time you'll explode.
I was actually at an interview for an apprenticeship at McDonnel Douglas when this occurred and privy to the information.
As for privy to MD info etc as an interviewee apprentice icepac, that holds absolutley no credibilty at all.
-
I went to the smithsonian instead after completing my courses at SIU carbondale.
I did type "gear down" but it's obvious I meant "gear up"........I see exploiting an obvious mistake is in your blood.
-
I see exploiting an obvious mistake is in your blood.
I'm a toon pilot, of course I exploit the mistakes of easy opponents. :banana:
-
Nope, six hours or you won't get my support.
Karnak,
Not to rain on your parade, but was there such a thing as a V-base in the war? Front line v-bases? I think in the real war the idea of a base was pretty nebulous. A mobile "Base" Could be for planes or vehicles or both.
So in game our "v-bases" could have re-arm pad added without compromizing the integrity of the "real life" v-bases....because there was no real v-base. :salute
+ 1 for OP.
-
During the war they actually had 2 more types of bases than we do in aces high. They also had three layouts for towns instead of just one.
Also, landing planes on piers and driving tanks over the maproom was the same as volunteering for KP duty.
-
Basicly the only planes we couldn't rearm would be ones that carry hispanos, russian 20mm, russian 23 or 37mm, russian 12.7mm, 30mm, or specialty weapons such as the 57mm, or 50mm BK.
The 20mm in the Wirbelwind is not the same as the 20mm MG151/20 or MG/FF.
The 57mm, if you are referring to the Molins gun in case we ever get the Mossie XVIII, is actually one of the ammos that would be stocked as it is just the 6lber ammo that any British tank with a 6lb gun would use.
-
How about putting them just inside the hanger door so you have to actually enter the hanger and turn back out?
-
How about putting them just inside the hanger door so you have to actually enter the hanger and turn back out?
FH, of course, but anywhere on the vbase is fine. :aok
-
Nope....I mean the hanger that is only open on one end.
If you want to rearm, you must acquire the skill to access the pad and get back out.
-
double post
-
Nope....I mean the hanger that is only open on one end.
If you want to rearm, you must acquire the skill to access the pad and get back out.
I think landing at a V-base and taxi-ing to a re-arm pad would be tough enough. Theres a lot of trees around most V-bases. Plus, you have to sit there while tanks and whirbs take shots at you. Then you have to take off, through/around the trees and over often non-even ground. Hard enough.
-
I think landing at a V-base and taxi-ing to a re-arm pad would be tough enough. Theres a lot of trees around most V-bases. Plus, you have to sit there while tanks and whirbs take shots at you. Then you have to take off, through/around the trees and over often non-even ground. Hard enough.
And fun, Vinky..... Don't forget about fun. :aok
-
There are plenty of examples of aircraft operating off of a big open field (no concrete runway) in every theatre, by every side in the war. You truck in your fuel and ords and either put it in a tent or dig a hole for it to live in until you need it. Instead of having a re-arm pad at a vh, I would just rather have it that aircraft could consume vehicle supplies to trigger a 30-second rearm cycle. What this would do is let you send vehicles full of supplies forward and position them at some open spot to let friendlies come in and rearm. It might create some interesting situations if done via LVT on an island near your target.
I like it!!!
-
historical or no, rearm at ports and vbases would be great (as well as getting rid of the trees inside a vbase so I can land there \ :joystick:)
-
My view is that all re arm pads should go and be replaced by ac supplies (Fuel and ammo) that can only be transported (by road or goon) from Air fields
Fuel there for the storch..... :D
-
I'm all for having a re arm pad at a vbase. Why not? Is it a break from realism? perhaps it is, but since we already have enough 'breaks from realism' in an interest of playability why not one more? For an example, supplies for GV's. GV's get supplied; rolled over vehicles are fixed, turrets operational again, tracks repaired etc., etc.
+1
-
I've vouched against this idea time and time again. There are a multitude of reasons to NOT put aircraft rearm and refuel pads on v-bases.
NO!!!!
-
What if we have rearm pads on vehicle bases and ports, but they'll be located on a truck convoy route.
-
I've vouched against this idea time and time again. There are a multitude of reasons to NOT put aircraft rearm and refuel pads on v-bases.
NO!!!!
What are they (or point to a thread where you've listed them please)?
-
yea what Midway said, what are the reasons?
-
I'm all for having a re arm pad at a vbase. Why not? Is it a break from realism? perhaps it is, but since we already have enough 'breaks from realism' in an interest of playability why not one more? For an example, supplies for GV's. GV's get supplied; rolled over vehicles are fixed, turrets operational again, tracks repaired etc., etc.
+1
Lots of fuel was trucked in to air bases.
-
Games are about limits. Take the limits out and the game is weakened.
-
I still don't see how it would be game breaking.
Personally I think 1000pdrs being loaded on fighters is far more game breaking. . .
-
How do you think your Spitfire will run using the crap GV fuel? The VH will have .303 and .50 ammo, but no go on the 20x110 ammo for your Hispanos. Bombs and rockets are right out.
[/quote]
Karnak, thats to say he even Survives the fight in the air...say its a 1-3 and Midway has to HO all 3 planes, and be relatively intact! Think he is reaching on this one :bolt:
-
I still don't see how it would be game breaking.
Personally I think 1000pdrs being loaded on fighters is far more game breaking. . .
Agreed!
-
How do you think your Spitfire will run using the crap GV fuel? The VH will have .303 and .50 ammo, but no go on the 20x110 ammo for your Hispanos. Bombs and rockets are right out.
Karnak, thats to say he even Survives the fight in the air...say its a 1-3 and Midway has to HO all 3 planes, and be relatively intact! Think he is reaching on this one :bolt:
I think you're reaching on this, Everything you just said is anecdotal and essentially "made up" just just to favor your argument.