Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SmokinLoon on December 10, 2012, 05:45:08 PM
-
For purposes of the game, compared to a GP bomb of the same weight the new bombs do the following:
HC or LC bombs do 75% damage on a direct hit and have 125% of the blast radius. [think more TNT but less shrapnel]
SAP bombs do 125% damage on direct hits and have 33% of the blast radius. [think less TNT but harder shell = more penetration before detonation]
AP bombs do 150% damage on direct hits and have 20% of the blast radius. [think even harder shell and even less TNT before detonation]
So in other words:
The AP/SAP are better for taking out single OBJ like the shore battery and hangers. The HC/LC bombs are better for creating large swaths of destroyed buildings in the towns and factories where the OBJ's are have a 312 lb hardness. :aok
In case if anyone is looking for a "new again old plane", the SDB now is able to carry a 1600 lb AP bomb and the B5N a 800kg AP bomb. Do the math and you'll see that a pair of them are able to destroy a shore battery. :rock Talk about new life for an original AH model! :D
I think this will be be a good thing. :D
I'm surprised that the 190F-8 did not get new ordnance, I'd figure it would get the 500kg SAP. Speaking of which, I'm hoping the 190F-8 gets the 8/50kg option sometime soon! :aok
-
I am going to leave early to "finish my christmas ligths before the sun goes down". After I update, put the B-29s in auto-climb, go finish the lights, and come back to test out the new, versatile, ordnances. :devil :banana:
-
so with AP bombs you can kill a hangar with 1800lb or so :O
Would it be possible to kill a hangar with a 190F8 now? :headscratch:
-
so with AP bombs you can kill a hangar with 1800lb or so :O
Would it be possible to kill a hangar with a 190F8 now? :headscratch:
Let me think, 500kg+50kg(4) = 700kg(1.25) = 875kg(~2.2) = 1,925lbs... Enough for a BH/FH and a small bunker or two. :banana:
Or, get this with the 125% AP bonus - 1,000lb(2) = 2,500lbs, freeing up rockets and gun straffing for other targets than following up on a single VH. :x
-
Whoa fellas... don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch. There are fewer planes than you think that carry AP and SAP bombs. Take a run up and down the plane set list and you'll see that there are a select few aircraft that are able to mount AP and SAP bombs. From memory, the B5N, D3A, SBD, G4M, Ju87D, and a few others can carry the AP bomb. The Me410 and Ju87D are the only ones I remember to be able to carry the SAP, and the Lancaster and Mossi are the only 2 lucky birds to be able to drop the HC bomb (4000 lb cookie).
I think over time HTC will discover more aircraft than they currently have not only were able but did carry AP/SAP bombs on a regular basis, and the 190F-8 comes to mind immediately. ;)
-
I think over time HTC will discover more aircraft than they currently have not only were able but did carry AP/SAP bombs on a regular basis, and the 190F-8 comes to mind immediately. ;)
On the other hand not all loadouts, even common ones, get modeled. I am thinking that HTC may be using the AP, SAP and HC bombs to give purpose to strike aircraft. If AP and SAP bombs get handed out willy nilly to fighters it removes that effect.
-
On the other hand not all loadouts, even common ones, get modeled. I am thinking that HTC may be using the AP, SAP and HC bombs to give purpose to strike aircraft. If AP and SAP bombs get handed out willy nilly to fighters it removes that effect.
What do you think the 190F-8 is? It's a striker.
-
On the other hand not all loadouts, even common ones, get modeled. I am thinking that HTC may be using the AP, SAP and HC bombs to give purpose to strike aircraft. If AP and SAP bombs get handed out willy nilly to fighters it removes that effect.
I see the importance of now having every aircraft the ability to arm themselves with specialty ordnance, I certainly see new value in the SBD. :aok However, allowing the 190F-8 the ability to carry the 250 and 500 kg SAP bombs (as well as the 8/50kg GP bombs), would separate it from the other three 190's. As it currently stand, it really only offers the 12 ant-armor Pb1 rockets and nothing more (save for the 4/50kg GP bombs) than the other three 190 models, it is the ugly ducking of 190's for it's only real value is the anti-armor role (and it is not easy to use in that role, either).
The second thing I did was to check and see if the P51's had AP bombs (I was happy to see they didn't). The first thing I did was check the 190F-8 and I was a bit disappointed. :frown:
-
I see the importance of now having every aircraft the ability to arm themselves with specialty ordnance, I certainly see new value in the SBD. :aok However, allowing the 190F-8 the ability to carry the 250 and 500 kg SAP bombs (as well as the 8/50kg GP bombs), would separate it from the other three 190's. As it currently stand, it really only offers the 12 ant-armor Pb1 rockets and nothing more (save for the 4/50kg GP bombs) than the other three 190 models, it is the ugly ducking of 190's for it's only real value is the anti-armor role (and it is not easy to use in that role, either).
The second thing I did was to check and see if the P51's had AP bombs (I was happy to see they didn't). The first thing I did was check the 190F-8 and I was a bit disappointed. :frown:
Ditto.
-
still no napalm... :furious
-
Yeah, I checked the P-51D right off as well. :p
I am not opposed to the idea of the Fw190F-8 getting SAP bombs. I just don't want to see every fighter that carried AP or SAP bombs on occasion to get them as an option. I want the B5N, D3A, Ju87 and SBD-5 to have more of a role and not simply to be overshadowed so totally by the late war fighters.
-
Yeah, I checked the P-51D right off as well. :p
I am not opposed to the idea of the Fw190F-8 getting SAP bombs. I just don't want to see every fighter that carried AP or SAP bombs on occasion to get them as an option. I want the B5N, D3A, Ju87 and SBD-5 to have more of a role and not simply to be overshadowed so totally by the late war fighters.
Agreed...and I know how much you hate 190's and those who fly them but...the F-8 is not a fighter. It never sortied in a fighter role. It was a dedicated tank and bridge buster.
Didn't expect any upgrades on the 190 seeing as we can't even get the tail wheel fixed. Oh I'm sounding more like Schlowey every post... :uhoh
-
Agreed...and I know how much you hate 190's and those who fly them but...the F-8 is not a fighter. It never sortied in a fighter role. It was a dedicated tank and bridge buster.
Didn't expect any upgrades on the 190 seeing as we can't even get the tail wheel fixed. Oh I'm sounding more like Schlowey every post... :uhoh
I don't hate the Fw190 or those who fly it. The Fw190A-5 is one of the fighters on my very short favorites list.
If you look at my posting history I have been advocating for something to give strike aircraft a reason for existing rather than just playing fourth fiddle to the late war fighters, particularly the American late war fighters. When I saw this comment from SmokingLoon "I think over time HTC will discover more aircraft than they currently have not only were able but did carry AP/SAP bombs on a regular basis," it seemed the kind of thing that leads to constant wishlist requests for AP or SAP bombs for the P-51D, P-47N and F4U-1D. That is what I am arguing against.
Currently the only fighter to carry special bombs is the Me410. The Fw190F-8 would make sense as well. I can't think of any others that I would like to see getting AP or SAP bombs though, certainly none of the American or British fighters.
-
still no napalm... :furious
Napalm would be great if you could drop it on running troops and make them run in circles on fire. Can't see much other use for it in this game.
-
I don't hate the Fw190 or those who fly it. The Fw190A-5 is one of the fighters on my very short favorites list.
If you look at my posting history I have been advocating for something to give strike aircraft a reason for existing rather than just playing fourth fiddle to the late war fighters, particularly the American late war fighters. When I saw this comment from SmokingLoon "I think over time HTC will discover more aircraft than they currently have not only were able but did carry AP/SAP bombs on a regular basis," it seemed the kind of thing that leads to constant wishlist requests for AP or SAP bombs for the P-51D, P-47N and F4U-1D. That is what I am arguing against.
Currently the only fighter to carry special bombs is the Me410. The Fw190F-8 would make sense as well. I can't think of any others that I would like to see getting AP or SAP bombs though, certainly none of the American or British fighters.
The Stuka D was given an overhaul of its ord, too. Previously to this update it was not able to carry 3/250kg bombs, now it can. Also, it too can carry the German SAP bombs. As far as the 190F-8 goes, I'm going to dig into a few sources but I know I've read of it carrying SAP/AP bombs for hammering hardened targets. I'm also really hoping HTC will give it the ability to mount 4/50kg bombs under the fuselage for a total of 8/50kg bombs. There is a photo of that somewhere here in the forums. I hope others can present some of the info and pics, I'm sure there are other fans of the 190F-8 out there. :aok
-
Shouldn't there be more difference between "hard" and "soft" targets to make the differences with these new bomb types more practical? Hitting an unhardened structure like the hangars as modeled on our airfields with an AP or SAP bomb strikes me as if it would do LESS damage (compare using an AP or SAP against a battleship, vs. the same thing hitting a destroyer. IRL, the bomb was more likely to pass THROUGH than to actually be set off by the thin-skinned destroyer). A GP or HC bomb would strike me as being much more effective for taking out such a structure.
-
I see the importance of now having every aircraft the ability to arm themselves with specialty ordnance, I certainly see new value in the SBD. :aok However, allowing the 190F-8 the ability to carry the 250 and 500 kg SAP bombs (as well as the 8/50kg GP bombs), would separate it from the other three 190's. As it currently stand, it really only offers the 12 ant-armor Pb1 rockets and nothing more (save for the 4/50kg GP bombs) than the other three 190 models, it is the ugly ducking of 190's for it's only real value is the anti-armor role (and it is not easy to use in that role, either).
The second thing I did was to check and see if the P51's had AP bombs (I was happy to see they didn't). The first thing I did was check the 190F-8 and I was a bit disappointed. :frown: [/b]
Thirded. :(
The Stuka D was given an overhaul of its ord, too. Previously to this update it was not able to carry 3/250kg bombs, now it can. Also, it too can carry the German SAP bombs. As far as the 190F-8 goes, I'm going to dig into a few sources but I know I've read of it carrying SAP/AP bombs for hammering hardened targets. I'm also really hoping HTC will give it the ability to mount 4/50kg bombs under the fuselage for a total of 8/50kg bombs. There is a photo of that somewhere here in the forums. I hope others can present some of the info and pics, I'm sure there are other fans of the 190F-8 out there. :aok
The stuka got a proper adjustment and even boost, you can carry its wing-mounted 250kgx2 loadout with any and ALL other loadouts (or not).
Why no F8 love, still?
(190 F-8 love, pwwwweeeeasssseee +cherries :pray )
-
still no napalm... :furious
In order to have napalm, other changes need to be made to the game such as modeling fire damage to objects.
ack-ack
-
Don't know why they're limiting AP and semi-AP to only dive bombers. It wasn't uncommon for US fighters to use AP or semi-AP bombs when in the fighter-bomber role, especially towards the end of the war when fighters started to take over ground attack/support role from dive bombers.
ack-ack
-
Don't know why they're limiting AP and semi-AP to only dive bombers.
My guess the original intention is to promote flying of dive bombers instead of the standard heavy fighter bomber. However, the way it is implemented there is still no situation where the hy Jabos aren't much superior in terms of striking power (in addition to higher survivability).
-
Don't know why they're limiting AP and semi-AP to only dive bombers. It wasn't uncommon for US fighters to use AP or semi-AP bombs when in the fighter-bomber role, especially towards the end of the war when fighters started to take over ground attack/support role from dive bombers.
ack-ack
They've never modeled all loadouts. They may also think that the heavy US fighters already get enough use without any additional encouragement to make it Mustangs High.
-
Shouldn't there be more difference between "hard" and "soft" targets to make the differences with these new bomb types more practical?
That's what I thought too. I hoped for a more, excuse the term, "realistic" modeling of AP bombs, giving them a true armor penetration value, depending on their size and impact speed (mostly depending on altitude). Against a hard target like the SB the standard GP bombs (as well as HE rockets) would do almost nothing, while AP and SAP bombs could penentrate and apply their explosive damage to the full extend. Just like shells in tank combat do.
On cruisers (and even more on possible future battleships), HE bombs could do heavy damage vs none or only lightly armored structures on deck (guns), while AP bombs would be better suited to actually sink the ship. We could also expand that concept to ammo bunkers on fields, requiring SAP or AP hits (or very large HE bombs) to be destroyed. More targets like that could be added in the future.
Then we would end up with a multitude of different targets, where plannign your mission ahead, chosing the right loadout would really matter, instead of just grabbing the biggest load your plane can carry.
Some numbers:
CV planes that now can carry AP bombs and the resulting increased lbs dmg equivalent:
B5N (bomb) 2165
D3A 927
SBD 1968
In comparison, carrying the good old GP loadout:
F4U-D 3248
And against area targets like the town, the increased damage of AP bombs is more than just countered by the reduction of the blast radius to only 20%.
-
Do bombs fall differently now or was it just a graphical change?
-
I think they said that bombs do indeed fall differently.
Oh, and can we have Tiny Tims now?
500lb SAP bomb with a rocket strapped on it. :-D
-
+1 snailman ...I really want ap and toros to really be the ship sinkers/ ammo bunker killers. I'm even for only 1 ammo bunker and it needs an ap bomb to kill it. The whole near miss rocket/gp bomb or 1 plane strafe is really way to gamely. You shouldn't be able to kill 8 inches on ca or Sb with gp bombs either. I'd like to see ap bombs do either 200 to 300% more dmg than gp. As it stands 150% is not worth it "risk reward" wise
-
That's what I thought too. I hoped for a more, excuse the term, "realistic" modeling of AP bombs, giving them a true armor penetration value, depending on their size and impact speed (mostly depending on altitude). Against a hard target like the SB the standard GP bombs (as well as HE rockets) would do almost nothing, while AP and SAP bombs could penentrate and apply their explosive damage to the full extend. Just like shells in tank combat do.
On cruisers (and even more on possible future battleships), HE bombs could do heavy damage vs none or only lightly armored structures on deck (guns), while AP bombs would be better suited to actually sink the ship. We could also expand that concept to ammo bunkers on fields, requiring SAP or AP hits (or very large HE bombs) to be destroyed. More targets like that could be added in the future.
Then we would end up with a multitude of different targets, where plannign your mission ahead, chosing the right loadout would really matter, instead of just grabbing the biggest load your plane can carry.
Some numbers:
CV planes that now can carry AP bombs and the resulting increased lbs dmg equivalent:
B5N (bomb) 2165
D3A 927
SBD 1968
In comparison, carrying the good old GP loadout:
F4U-D 3248
And against area targets like the town, the increased damage of AP bombs is more than just countered by the reduction of the blast radius to only 20%.
GP bombs = %100 dmg and %100 splash
AP bombs = %150 dmg and %20 splash
SAP bombs = %125 dmg and %33 splash
HC bombs = %75 dmg and %125 splash
%150 of the SBD's 1600 lb AP bomb = 2400 lbs of GP bomb damage.
The B5N's 800 kg AP bomb (1760 lbs) = 1200 kg (2640 lbs) of GP bomb damage.
The D3A's 250 kg AP bomb (550 lbs) = 375 kg (825 lbs) of GP bomb damage.
The Me410's 250 kg SAP bombs (550 lbs) = 312 kg (687 lbs) of GP damage.
Or... am I missing something?
FWIW: I applaud HTC's effort in expanding the ordnance, it is certainly a welcome change. As Looshy said, I too *really* hope to see HTC work on the OBJ hardness and adjust accordingly. Obviously, it should take a bit more to destroy a reinforced concrete bunker than a plywood and canvas built barrack. Likewise, the armor on a naval ship should account for something and the damage done to the exterior structure (guns, radar) should be different than damage registered to the hull. Only HTC knows how the coding could be adjusted for that, but what is certain is that adjustments can be made because of HTC can have the shore battery shrug off MG rounds then it can do the same to ammo bunkers as well. :aok
-
Or... am I missing something?
You are taking the bomb weight for the calculations, not the actual explosive power.
A standard 1000lbs bomb does 1000lbs of damage, but a 200lbs bomb only 1719lbs, while a standard 500lbs bomb does 562lbs of damage. The bigger the bomb, the less effective it is.
-
You are taking the bomb weight for the calculations, not the actual explosive power.
A standard 1000lbs bomb does 1000lbs of damage, but a 200lbs bomb only 1719lbs, while a standard 500lbs bomb does 562lbs of damage. The bigger the bomb, the less effective it is.
on a pound for pound basis, yes.
Did you actually do the testing offline or are you applying the already known GP bomb damage data?
-
Did you actually do the testing offline or are you applying the already known GP bomb damage data?
Both. I did a lot of tests, wich were then valified by a list of bomb power HiTech himself posted about 2 or 3 years ago (using an internal format).
-
Both. I did a lot of tests, wich were then valified by a list of bomb power HiTech himself posted about 2 or 3 years ago (using an internal format).
So based on the chart you have, what are you showing for damage from a 1600 lb GP bomb? (checking to see you and I have the same chart)
Dmg for a 500 lb GP?
Dmg for a 1000 lb GP?
Dmg for a 2000 lb GP?
just to be sure, I', not asking for damage "points", I'm asking for the damage as compared to the 1000 lb bomb standard, as in how many lbs does it take to destroy a hanger, etc.
-
SmokinLoon,
Per my testing earlier this year:
210mm WGr21 rocket: 93.50lbs of damage
PB1 rocket: 93.50lbs of damage
4.5" M8 rocket: 125.00lbs of damage
100lb bomb: 156.20lbs of damage
HVAR 5" rocket: 159.50lbs of damage
50kg bomb: 171.80lbs of damage
RP-3 60lb rocket: 187.50lbs of damage
250lb bomb: 312.50lbs of damage
500lb bomb: 562.50lbs of damage
250kg bomb: 618.70lbs of damage
1000lb bomb: 1000.00lbs of damage
500kg bomb: 1100.00lbs of damage
-
SmokinLoon,
Per my testing earlier this year:
210mm WGr21 rocket: 93.50lbs of damage
PB1 rocket: 93.50lbs of damage
4.5" M8 rocket: 125.00lbs of damage
100lb bomb: 156.20lbs of damage
HVAR 5" rocket: 159.50lbs of damage
50kg bomb: 171.80lbs of damage
RP-3 60lb rocket: 187.50lbs of damage
250lb bomb: 312.50lbs of damage
500lb bomb: 562.50lbs of damage
250kg bomb: 618.70lbs of damage
1000lb bomb: 1000.00lbs of damage
500kg bomb: 1100.00lbs of damage
Thanks. That is very much what I have with the only difference being the 5in HVAR rockets, I have them at 156 lbs but I have not tested them in the last 12 mos. What do you have for the 2000 and 4000 lb GP bomb for damage? 1600kg?
Do you have the damage for the Soviet RS rockets and German 28cm rockets? If not, let me know I just tested them again about 4 mos ago.
-
Those are all of the numbers I completed.
-
just to be sure, I', not asking for damage "points", I'm asking for the damage as compared to the 1000 lb bomb standard, as in how many lbs does it take to destroy a hanger, etc.
If you have the internal damage points for all the bombs including the 1000lbs one, you also have the numbers compared to the 1000lbs standard ;)
BTW, it was your own thread where HiTech posted the damage values for the GP bombs: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,301412.msg3870327.html#msg3870327
-
If you have the internal damage points for all the bombs including the 1000lbs one, you also have the numbers compared to the 1000lbs standard ;)
BTW, it was your own thread where HiTech posted the damage values for the GP bombs: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,301412.msg3870327.html#msg3870327
Indeed. I'm just making sure nothing has changed. Pyro himself said once upon a time that some changes slip through the cracks and are not listed in the change log. :aok
There are two sets of numbers when speaking of bombs. There are the damage points and there are the damage values (my terms). What registers as damage points in the text bar does not represent actual damage delivered to a target per say. If and when a player drops 2000 lbs of ordnance (2/1k bombs) on a shore battery (SB harness is set to 3906 lbs) and then successfully lands, the text bar does not show "Player landed 2000 damage in a B26", it will show "Player landed 1280 damage in a B26). If that same player drops 4/500lb bombs on the SB instead of the 1280 lbs of damage in the text bar it will show "Player landed 1440 damage in a B26", yet that same player delivered 2248 lbs of damage value to towards the SB's 3906 lb hardness setting. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Damage points vs damage value. Two different things. The list that Karnak posted are actual on site damage values towards the destruction of whatever OBJ is the targer, that is what I am looking for. If a 1000 lb GP bomb does 1000 lbs of damage toward a SB, then a 1600 lb AP should in theory deliver 2400 lbs of damage (but obviously the heavier the bomb the less efficient it is per lb) . I have yet to test it offline. However, I did get to test it out in the EW arena and my two drops on a SB did NOT destroy it (direct hits within 15 mins of each other), so the damage is projected to be less than 1953. Did you arrive at the 1968 lbs for the 1600 lb AP bomb offline?
-
In order to have napalm, other changes need to be made to the game such as modeling fire damage to objects.
ack-ack
I realize this, all i'm saying is that fire damage should have been one of the first things modeled into the game imo.
-
Indeed. I'm just making sure nothing has changed. Pyro himself said once upon a time that some changes slip through the cracks and are not listed in the change log. :aok
There are two sets of numbers when speaking of bombs. There are the damage points and there are the damage values (my terms).
For the record, I was never speaking of the "damage points" appearing in the host message in the arena - I was strictly referring to the values the game is using internally to apply damage, which are not using the "1000lbs bomb equivalent" format.
-
If you have the internal damage points for all the bombs including the 1000lbs one, you also have the numbers compared to the 1000lbs standard ;)
BTW, it was your own thread where HiTech posted the damage values for the GP bombs: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,301412.msg3870327.html#msg3870327
Two years ago and the damage done is measured as "GP"
:noid