Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: LilMak on April 28, 2013, 11:37:01 AM
-
I'd like to see 1k bombs for fighter aircraft be assigned a perk cost of 1 perk per bomb. As it stands now, I feel that fighter aircraft are being abused in the bomber role. The standard mode of base attack has boiled down to large numbers of American fighters (47s, 38s, 51s, F4Us, F6fs) screaming in a flattening all base hangars in a single pass. I considered asking for targets to be hardened beyond what a single heavy fighter could haul but I don't think that would be fair to the bomber guys. As it stands right now, I think it's too easy to close a base using quick strikes with heavy fighter aircraft. Given the the short distances between bases in the MA, I believe heavy fighter missions bent on hangar destruction (no enemy resistance) have a heavy advantage over defenders and cause a gameplay imbalance in favor of attackers. While the perked load isn't a new idea and may never be implemented, it is still my wish to attempt to even things out a little.
-
Perhaps instead of a perk on 1k bombs for fighters, how about eliminating their availability altogether?
500 pounders should be the limit for fighters. Not because they couldn't carry more, but as a game play limitation - like the amount needed to destroy a corrugated tin fighter hangar is far more than what is needed to destroy a concrete ammo bunker. A horde of 1k bomb-laden fighters is far more effective (and far more quick, easy and survivable) than a bomber horde. Let the bombers bomb the big stuff.
-
Then it would be a risky thing to kill wirblse with a 38g
-
Perhaps instead of a perk on 1k bombs for fighters, how about eliminating their availability altogether?
Makes more sense to me. +1
-
Hell yes
-
Eliminated no, regulated a big yes :aok
-
Then it would be a risky thing to kill wirblse with a 38g
A 500 pounder has more than enough to kill a Wirble or anything short of a Tiger with a near miss. Now actually seeing where the Wirble is, that's another topic. I miss the old GV icon days. :(
-
A 500 pounder has more than enough to kill a Wirble or anything short of a Tiger with a near miss. Now actually seeing where the Wirble is, that's another topic. I miss the old GV icon days. :(
yes thongs have
become
difficult nowadays
-
+1 to perked heavy ordnance on fighters, with the exception of special ord packages, such as the SAP 500kg on the 190F and 410. should the 190F also get things like the SC250 wing racks, then maybe.
-
+1 to perked heavy ordnance on fighters, with the exception of special ord packages, such as the SAP 500kg on the 190F and 410. should the 190F also get things like the SC250 wing racks, then maybe.
Why should German stuff get a freebie? No, control it all. You can pay a perk or two for your 500kg SAP bombs just as well as Joe Mustang can pay a perk or two for his 1000lb bombs.
-
The difference is the 190F only carries one, while the P-51 had two. You're essentially saying the 190F absolutely positively be half as effective as the Allied fighters because derp.
And notice I said if the 190F ever gets its two wing mounted 250kg bombs, we could consider perking the 500kg bomb.
And last I saw, the 410 was a heavy fighter. 110 should have some slack as well. If the Mossie used 1000lb bombs instead of 500lb ones, I'd argue for those too.
You could also make a case for the P-38 and 47, but those have obvious issues with being counter productive to the OP's goal.
-
The difference is the 190F only carries one, while the P-51 had two. You're essentially saying the 190F absolutely positively be half as effective as the Allied fighters because derp.
And notice I said if the 190F ever gets its two wing mounted 250kg bombs, we could consider perking the 500kg bomb.
And last I saw, the 410 was a heavy fighter. 110 should have some slack as well. If the Mossie used 1000lb bombs instead of 500lb ones, I'd argue for those too.
You could also make a case for the P-38 and 47, but those have obvious issues with being counter productive to the OP's goal.
Disagree. All fighters, don't care how big, should have the 1000lb class weapons controlled. The Fw190F-8 has no intrinsic right to carry as much as a P-51D so that is completely a non-issue. It isn't even a balance issue.
-
I'll go along with the 1k bombs
being perked for fighters. Albiet only if they are perked and I'd say go a bit heavier with 5 perks.
-
yes thongs have
become
difficult nowadays
well go on a diet then.
or, even better, DONT WEAR THEM! :huh
-
Disagree. All fighters, don't care how big, should have the 1000lb class weapons controlled. The Fw190F-8 has no intrinsic right to carry as much as a P-51D so that is completely a non-issue. It isn't even a balance issue.
The P-51 has no intrinsic right to carry more ord either. And the 190 is missing a bunch of ord options, so we're missing a bunch of functionality. No need to hurt it more.
And 190F right now has about as much ord capacity as a P-51 with the proposed changes. Considering the changes would be for game play, there is no gameplay-based reason to impose the same limit on the 190.
They are all either based on historical representation (not the case here) or personal bias.
-
The P-51 has no intrinsic right to carry more ord either. And the 190 is missing a bunch of ord options, so we're missing a bunch of functionality. No need to hurt it more.
And 190F right now has about as much ord capacity as a P-51 with the proposed changes. Considering the changes would be for game play, there is no gameplay-based reason to impose the same limit on the 190.
They are all either based on historical representation (not the case here) or personal bias.
Your bias is showing. Badly.
There is no balance issue. All sides have access to all weapons. Retaining the 1000lb class weapon for the Fw190F-8 is nothing more than a sop to Luftwaffe fans.
By all means give it more of its load outs, but don't think the P-51D has anything to do with that.
-
I totally agree in giving the 190 it's due, but I don't believe in exempting it from proposed changes.
And I use the F model way more often than the 51.
Just to show an unbiased opinion.
-
What's wrong with being bias? Let the 190 have unperked ords! 190 forever! :old:
-
What's wrong with being bias? Let the 190 have unperked ords! 190 forever! :old:
bro do you even 190?
-
Your bias is showing. Badly.
There is no balance issue. All sides have access to all weapons. Retaining the 1000lb class weapon for the Fw190F-8 is nothing more than a sop to Luftwaffe fans.
By all means give it more of its load outs, but don't think the P-51D has anything to do with that.
The P-51D could just be considered the stock comparison fighter for the game. Hell, it IS the stock fighter; its the default fighter that is initially selected when you first boot up the game.
More important is the fact that, with these changes, the P-51D's MAXIMUM ORDNANCE CAPACITY is still greater than that of the 190F-8's is without the changes. Because nobody is proposing we limit the P-51D to 250lb bombs instead of 500lb bombs, clearly excessive ordnance capacity is not an issue for the 190F-8.
How is imposing an ordnance limitation on the 190F-8 with its single 500kg bomb any different than imposing a limitation on the P-51B with its 2x 500lb bombs.... Total ordnance capacity likely favors the P-51B, rockets included, yet just because the P-51B's ordnance is distributed into two smaller (but more effective and efficient) packages, it gets an exception from a perk price?
I mean come on Karnak, theres really only three possible things going on:
1) its about overall capacity, and actual bomb-size doesn't really matter.
2) Its about bomb-size, f**k ordnance capacity.
3) its about overall capacity, but you just think I'm biased, and have extended that to the idea itself.
-
More important is the fact that, with these changes, the P-51D's MAXIMUM ORDNANCE CAPACITY is still greater than that of the 190F-8's is without the changes.
I don't think you are getting it. It does not matter what the P-51D can or cannot do. It doesn't matter what the P-47N can or cannot do. It doesn't matter what the Typhoon can or cannot do. You seem to be regarding it as a competition in which you want the Fw190F-8 to get as close to the P-51D as you can, but that is wrong thinking. There is no competition here. Bishops, Knights and Rooks all have access to all aircraft. MA settings have no effect on AvA or scenario settings.
The 1000lb class weapon is much more capable when it comes to destroying things, perk tanks for example, than 500lb class weapons. Restricting it on some fighters and not others does not make sense. You are looking for an excuse to keep your 1000lb class weapon while stripping others of theirs.
I believe there is a fighter out there, one of the F4Us perhaps, that can carry a single 1000lb bomb. That should be restricted too.
Either do them all or don't do any of them.
-
I don't think you are getting it. It does not matter what the P-51D can or cannot do. It doesn't matter what the P-47N can or cannot do. It doesn't matter what the Typhoon can or cannot do. You seem to be regarding it as a competition in which you want the Fw190F-8 to get as close to the P-51D as you can, but that is wrong thinking. There is no competition here. Bishops, Knights and Rooks all have access to all aircraft. MA settings have no effect on AvA or scenario settings.
No, you're misunderstanding. Compare it to the P-51D, P-47, P-38, F4U-1C onwards, Typhoon, 110G, Mossie, etc. Any fighter that carries 2000lbs or more in bombs alone is in roughly the same possition to the 190F-8. That is to say, they carry almost twice the ordnance in bombs alone.
What you don't understand is that the P-51D is NOTHING MORE THAN A BASE FOR COMPARISON.
The 1000lb class weapon is much more capable when it comes to destroying things, perk tanks for example, than 500lb class weapons. Restricting it on some fighters and not others does not make sense. You are looking for an excuse to keep your 1000lb class weapon while stripping others of theirs.
Thats wasn't the reason for the proposed changes. And in any case, the 190's 500kg bomb is an SAP weapon, which has a reduced blast radius (90% of the reason larger bombs are more usefull, IMO).
Beyond that, the 500lb class of weapons are also more capable or effective when destroying town strucures, ship guns, non-perked and light-perked vehicles. An M4 goes up just as easy as a Panzer.
I believe there is a fighter out there, one of the F4Us perhaps, that can carry a single 1000lb bomb. That should be restricted too.
Nope, you can drop any F4U down to 250lb bombs, IIRC.
Either do them all or don't do any of them.
Should the USA apply that same logic to welfare? Either everybody gets a handout, or nobody (not even the people that need one) does?
-
:rolleyes:
-
I'll give a +1 for certain planes being regulated, maybe not necessarily perked (ie: only so many 1k bombs can leave a base at a time). However I feel that the carrier planes should be able to keep their bomb loads. If they take an F4U two sectors just to hit a base, or even one sector, they are going to need at least 75% fuel to stay for any reasonable amount of time. A heavy F4U is not an easy bird to fly.
I'm sure we all know what has brought about this request and why it is so heavily favored. Shame on the guys who abuse the system. I personally love when I get a head start on them. Their bomb laden planes are easy kills, and they usually are quick to ditch ords at the first sign of trouble.
The way it would work would be similar to the following:
-A full "squad" of planes can up with the max load out at a time. A squad in this case being 4 to 6 planes. I know that squads in WWII had more planes (between 12 and 24 if I'm not mistaken), but this is an attempt to work around the AH numbers. 12 P-47s can still effectively shut down and capture a base.
-Once a "squad" has taken off from the base, there is a "resupply" time assigned to the base... say 5 minutes. If only one plane takes off then that percentage of 5 mins will be given to the time.
I feel that putting a cap on the number of ords able to leave a base at a given time for fighters would help to do one of three things.
1) They have to wait until the entire horde can take off (preferable taking several minutes) this would allow others to spot the massive dar bar that is growing in the sector and prepare for the attack.
2) They go straight to the base after upping but the cap forces their numbers to be thinned, making it a much more manageable situation.
3) They have to up out of separate bases, thus making it harder to coordinate targets (unless they are all on the same vox and no mission ever has all the players on the mission vox). Some would also have to fly further to reach their targets possibly limiting their time over target.
Exceptions would be having bombers in a mission would allow for all the bombers to carry their load out, but fighters would still have a cap on how many bombs can taken (let's say 4 heavy fighters for clean up). Hopefully this will allow a strategic element to be put back in the game.
-
No, you're misunderstanding. Compare it to the P-51D, P-47, P-38, F4U-1C onwards, Typhoon, 110G, Mossie, etc. Any fighter that carries 2000lbs or more in bombs alone is in roughly the same possition to the 190F-8. That is to say, they carry almost twice the ordnance in bombs alone.
What you don't understand is that the P-51D is NOTHING MORE THAN A BASE FOR COMPARISON.
You still don't get it. Different aircraft have different loads. There isn't an attempt to make them all the same. It doesn't matter what any other aircraft carries. Either you are restricting 1000lb class weapons, or you aren't.
Thats wasn't the reason for the proposed changes. And in any case, the 190's 500kg bomb is an SAP weapon, which has a reduced blast radius (90% of the reason larger bombs are more usefull, IMO).
I've hit a Tiger I with a 500lb bomb (hit sprite) and had the Tiger survive. The Tiger player's response was "That was LOUD!"
Beyond that, the 500lb class of weapons are also more capable or effective when destroying town strucures, ship guns, non-perked and light-perked vehicles. An M4 goes up just as easy as a Panzer.
That isn't what is being discussed though. Hangars are the main thing here.
Nope, you can drop any F4U down to 250lb bombs, IIRC.
You really missed my point? Really? The F4U-1 and F4U-1A can carry a single 1000lb bomb, kind of like the Fw190F-8. Those single 1000lb bombs should be perked as well, even though it drops the F4U-1 and F4U-1A below the P-51D's two 500lb bombs or the F4U-1D's two 500lb bombs. The advantage of the P-51D or F4U-1D are that they can carry two 500lb bombs rather than one. It is one of their strengths. Picking and choosing which 1000lb class weapons get perked and which don't get perked is an attempt to remove that advantage. If you want the Fw190F-8 to have that, get a 250kg loadout for it, if such a thing existed.
Should the USA apply that same logic to welfare? Either everybody gets a handout, or nobody (not even the people that need one) does?
The Bishops, Knights and Rooks are all able to use anything in the game. Your point makes no sense unless you are arguing from a viewpoint where German stuff has to be compensated for some reason. Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole with your Me262 and Me163?
-
You still don't get it. Different aircraft have different loads. There isn't an attempt to make them all the same. It doesn't matter what any other aircraft carries. Either you are restricting 1000lb class weapons, or you aren't.
The system can clearly handle more than an all or nothing system. So why use such a system when there are cases that warrant exception?
And its not really about bomb size. Is about fighters with large capacities displacing bombers in the MA. That was the entire motivation for the proposed limitations.
I've hit a Tiger I with a 500lb bomb (hit sprite) and had the Tiger survive. The Tiger player's response was "That was LOUD!"
Valid point. Still though... 2 out of 11 actual tanks, both 2 of the 3 least common, one being THE least common.
That isn't what is being discussed though. Hangers are the main thing here.
So it's capacity that's more important, not bomb size. Just make the 500kg GP bomb unrestricted, and restrict the SAP bomb.
I'm fine with the other 190s having the restriction, it's just the F8 was an attacker first and foremost, and it won't be used in that role of it can only carry 500lbs of ordnance in bombs.
Add the wing racks, and you can put the restriction on it as well.
The advantage of the P-51D or F4U-1D are that they can carry two 500lb bombs rather than one. It is one of their strengths. Picking and choosing which 1000lb class weapons get perked and which don't get perked is an attempt to remove that advantage. If you want the Fw190F-8 to have that, get a 250kg loadout for it, if such a thing existed.
The 190 had that same advantage in real life. It just doesn't in the game. I've asked for it repeatedly.
It's not removing an advantage, because that particular advantage didn't exist in real life. It's compensating for what we don't have in the game.
There is precedent for this in aircraft substitutions in scenarios. Instead of just ignoring history, we do what we can, and work with what we have.
The Bishops, Knights and Rooks are all able to use anything in the game. Your point makes no sense unless you are arguing from a viewpoint where German stuff has to be compensated for some reason. Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole with your Me262 and Me163?
Or if you're arguing from a standpoint of diversity being an asset, and encouraging diversity being worth while.
It's better for the game play that I prefer the 190 to the P-51, just as is better you (probably) prefer the Mosquito.
-
Then the proper way of going about it would be to get your two 250kg bomb load out added. The more options on the Fw190F-8 the better.
-
How is imposing an ordnance limitation on the 190F-8 with its single 550kg bomb
Here's a problem - its said a 190F could carry a 1600kg bomb, however I've never seen any proof it did carry it, let alone a 500kg bomb. Someone has to have certain proof before it would be added.
I researched it a ton a while back, I could not get 100% proof, however I can prove a 190G did infact carry a 500kg bomb on a long range mission, however we don't have 190G's
-
Here's a problem - its said a 190F could carry a 1600kg bomb, however I've never seen any proof it did carry it, let alone a 500kg bomb. Someone has to have certain proof before it would be added.
I researched it a ton a while back, I could not get 100% proof, however I can prove a 190G did infact carry a 500kg bomb on a long range mission, however we don't have 190G's
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2061/fw190f8wsc500.jpg)
500kg bomb, and it's already in the game. We're taking about the wing racks that could carry up to a 250kg bomb, and maybe a 500kg bomb (nobody was able to ID the 190 model in a photo)
-
Then the proper way of going about it would be to get your two 250kg bomb load out added. The more options on the Fw190F-8 the better.
Im not in charge of what is added. They've added some stuff that's below if on the priority list, and I've asked repeatedly.
Given that this would adversely affect the F8, and is entirely out of our hands when we get an actual fix, it wouldn't be entirely inappropriate to wave the restriction until it has the wing racks.
-
Given that this would adversely affect the F8, and is entirely out of our hands when we get an actual fix, it wouldn't be entirely inappropriate to wave the restriction until it has the wing racks.
It adversely affects anything that carries a 1000lb class weapon. You're asking for a special exemption for your toy because it is your toy.
Also, the Fw190F-8 has both a 500kg GP and 500kg SAP bomb on its option list right now.
-
It adversely affects anything that carries a 1000lb class weapon. You're asking for a special exemption for your toy because it is your toy.
Im asking for exemption for my toy because it appears to be in a unique situation in the game.
Let me rephrase: it adversely affects the F8 to a greater degree in the context of historical capabilities, due to the 190F8 lacking a wider range of bomb options than most, perhaps all other aircraft.
That being so, and given that there is precedence for this type of action, it would not be inappropriate to wave the restriction until HTC adds the wing rack, so that the 190F better reflects is historical capabilities relative to other aircraft, and to let it keep its combat effectiveness in the MAs.
Also, the Fw190F-8 has both a 500kg GP and 500kg SAP bomb on its option list right now.
Yes, I edited my earlier post because my phone cut off the first part of my response.
-
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2061/fw190f8wsc500.jpg)
500kg bomb, and it's already in the game. We're taking about the wing racks that could carry up to a 250kg bomb, and maybe a 500kg bomb (nobody was able to ID the 190 model in a photo)
Here's the information I have on the 190F and 190G
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6937/bombrack.jpg)
-
-10 :furious
-
Here's the information I have on the 190F and 190G
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6937/bombrack.jpg)
dammit wish u took German in HS :bhead
what's above the engine on the right photo? That a telescope or something?
-
Although my wish has more to do with capacity than size, I don't think it would be fair to perk 1000lb type weapons on one group of fighters and not another. The perk cost seems fair to me because it would cost more to load a 51 than a 190. I also don't think it'll stop large squad ops from flattening bases but it may stem the tide a little. Instead of 30 plane fighter raids, it might bring it down to a more manageable number or, more importantly, bring a little more variety in the type of planes used in larger missions. If the distances in the arenas were greater, I would see no reason to perk the bombs. As it stands right now, a heavy fighter mission can launch and shut down a field before the enemy has any time to react. Valid tactic sure, but the commonality of these type of smash and grab tactics gives attackers a heavy advantage. Especially if they are using persuit fighters instead of bombers. It takes time to set up and fill a mission. It takes just as much or more time to set up a reasonable defense. This encourages large organized groups to attack instead of defend IMO and reduces the amount of air to air action the game has the potential to create.
-
I'd like to see 1k bombs for fighter aircraft be assigned a perk cost of 1 perk per bomb. As it stands now, I feel that fighter aircraft are being abused in the bomber role.
+1
I'd even suggest making it cost 5 perks per 1000lb bomb.
I see heavy P-51D's and P-47's used often as kamikazes against CVs and as base porkers, with little regard for survival. Making it cost 10 perks (if you don't land) sounds like about the right price to curb the frequency of those who kamikaze 2,000 lbs on a CV or auger in on hangers.
<S>
Ryno
-
totally+1 all fighters included. Expect hordes of 110's and nikies :P
-
+1
I'd even suggest making it cost 5 perks per 1000lb bomb.
I see heavy P-51D's and P-47's used often as kamikazes against CVs and as base porkers, with little regard for survival. Making it cost 10 perks (if you don't land) sounds like about the right price to curb the frequency of those who kamikaze 2,000 lbs on a CV or auger in on hangers.
<S>
Ryno
This. The kamikaze method of following bombs into the dar / hangar / ack whatever.... :bhead
-
Here's the information I have on the 190F and 190G
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6937/bombrack.jpg)
There was no difference in engine, control surfaces, etc between the various /Ux and /Rx models. All that represents in the majority of cases is a wing rack being mounted on the stock fighter, or MG/FFs being put in the outer wing.
And remember, if it has a U or R designation, it was an official upgrade package. In the case of /R upgrades, it was done in the field, but /U upgrades were typically factory installed.
So yes, the 250KG wing racks were technically on the Fw 190F-8/U1, adding the wing racks would turn our current stock 190F-8 into a 190F-8/U1 in every measurable way. It is to the point that differentiating between the various upgrades is pointless in most cases.
-
If HTC will commit to upgrading the 190's ordnance as the next update after ord limitations, then I'll support across the board limitations.
But if it's going to be a situation of waiting an unknown time and number of updates, perhaps years, with a severely gimped 190F, then no.
-
The 190 is going to be cheaper!
And I'm guessing he shall forever hold his peace
-
Heck yeah, why stop there......you want fuel..it's perked, you want ammo....it's perked...want to take off ...its perked...soon we'll have to pay to fly :bhead
-
I think 5 perks per bomb is a little extreme. 2 perks per egg max IMO.
Heck yeah, why stop there......you want fuel..it's perked, you want ammo....it's perked...want to take off ...its perked...soon we'll have to pay to fly :bhead
Why stop there? Because i don't see hordes of LAs shutting down bases with 20mm. If it could be done, there would be no point in having ord or bombers in game. As it stands right now, I feel that bombers are underutilized simply because you can accomplish the mission easier with fighters that carry enough boom to kill a hangar, a couple ack guns, a GV, and still loiter in the area to pick off any enemy fighters that show up. Pursuit fighters also can cross typical MA distances faster and are much harder to intercept giving attacking groups a lopsided advantage. Perking 1000lb ord for fighters might give people a reason to grab a bomber instead is the current MA standard which is to throw as many 51s at a base as possible.
-
I think 5 perks per bomb is a little extreme. 2 perks per egg max IMO.
Why stop there? Because i don't see hordes of LAs shutting down bases with 20mm. If it could be done, there would be no point in having ord or bombers in game. As it stands right now, I feel that bombers are underutilized simply because you can accomplish the mission easier with fighters that carry enough boom to kill a hangar, a couple ack guns, a GV, and still loiter in the area to pick off any enemy fighters that show up. Pursuit fighters also can cross typical MA distances faster and are much harder to intercept giving attacking groups a lopsided advantage. Perking 1000lb ord for fighters might give people a reason to grab a bomber instead is the current MA standard which is to throw as many 51s at a base as possible.
This is +1
I see valid medium buffs left in the hanger because a P51,jug,38 can carry almost as much, faster then the bomber. then on top of that when the 51 horde hits everything they can hang around with large amounts of fuel and ammo waiting to stop people flying in from another base or quickly kill anything that might have upped.
-
Heck yeah, why stop there......you want fuel..it's perked, you want ammo....it's perked...want to take off ...its perked...soon we'll have to pay to fly :bhead
*cough* he is a bishop no one cares *cough*
-
I would agree to the sensible use of perk deposits for ordinance. I'd leave he definition of sensible to HTC.
But it would be a deposit. I.e you don't buy ordinance....... Instead you increase the perk deposit of the ride by choosing certain ordinances.
I would support the re classification of all fighters to score as "attack" (and attack only) every time ordinance is chosen.
I would then support the introduction of "attack perks" in addition to fighter/bomber/vehicle perks.
-
*cough* he is a bishop no one cares *cough*
and you are??? oh who cares
-
Bish smell
-
After reading this entire thread I am at a loss to understand why those asking for perked ordinance loads belive that taking something away makes the game any better.
Is it because you are GV'ers and are tired of being bombed ?
I don't have a pony in this race because I very seldom, maybe once a month, up a fighter with ords.
I do see many threads pop up where some folks want to take something from other folks who enjoy what is being attempted to remove.
-
After reading this entire thread I am at a loss to understand why those asking for perked ordinance loads belive that taking something away makes the game any better.
Once upon a time AH removed the player's ability to freely fly F4U-C's all the time. By introducing the perks they took something away.
And made the game better by bringing back some diversity.
-
What this wish looks to me like it would do is pretty much eliminate the average rank and file hordeling taking 1k bombs. Would a horde of ponies or jugs with 500lbers and rockets be that much less effective? Would it swap over to 110s with 500lbers being the new horde ride of choice?
Removing the current path of cheapest perks and least resistance just means the next easiest thing would become the next choice. I don't think it's likely they're going to go, 'No more 1k bombs for our horde of P51s? Let's up well planned missions involving escorted formations of B-17s!'
I just don't see it making an improvement to gameplay.
Wiley.
-
A 500 pounder has more than enough to kill a Wirble or anything short of a Tiger with a near miss. Now actually seeing where the Wirble is, that's another topic. I miss the old GV icon days. :(
Good grief.
A 500# bomb is more than enough to kill a tiger as long as it lands nearby.
-
Then obviously all bombs must be taken from fighters accept 250 pounders :D
-
Bf110s are easier to stop than P-51s. Also, it takes longer to apply the damage from cannons than from bombs and rockets.
-
Then obviously all bombs must be taken from fighters accept 250 pounders :D
Good Grief.
Those need a direct hit, or within a horse shoe to kill a panzer.
-
After reading this entire thread I am at a loss to understand why those asking for perked ordinance loads belive that taking something away makes the game any better.
Is it because you are GV'ers and are tired of being bombed ?
I don't have a pony in this race because I very seldom, maybe once a month, up a fighter with ords.
I do see many threads pop up where some folks want to take something from other folks who enjoy what is being attempted to remove.
Nothing is being "taken away" or "removed" by this suggestion, Zoney. You still have the option of using what you want. It's just like choosing to fly a tempest, -4 Hog or 262 -- you simply pay for the advantage they give.
In this case the suggestion is having to pay a few perks for the choice (advantage) of using 1000lb bombs on a fighter. You are still only "depositing" those perks, as you get them back when you land. The idea is to have a cost deterrent for those who use (or mis-use, as the OP is suggesting) that load-out on fighter aircraft, especially when they are used so often in a kamikaze style of play.
As Wiley suggests, this is likely to encourage some players to chose something else (the next best thing), but that next thing is likely to be less overwhelming. So I think this would actually improve game-play, as the mass Pony/Jug raids would be slightly less effective, and possibly less common.
I for one would much rather see hordes of 110's porking bases than hordes of Ponies and P-47s porking bases or playing CV kamikaze.
On a side note: Adding the ability to perk various load-outs, and show that cost in the hanger, could be an interesting feature in the game in general. It could allow for a wider array of available load-outs (or aircraft features) offered in the hanger, with the traditional or more historically used (higher production) items being free and the more obscure or advantageous ones coming at a cost.
<S>
-
Good Grief.
Those need a direct hit, or within a horse shoe to kill a panzer.
Or they can gives us nukes :D
-
In this case the suggestion is having to pay a few perks for the choice (advantage) of using 1000lb bombs on a fighter. You are still only "depositing" those perks, as you get them back when you land. The idea is to have a cost deterrent for those who use (or mis-use, as the OP is suggesting) that load-out on fighter aircraft, especially when they are used so often in a kamikaze style of play.
And I'm all about that. Bomb and bailers and jabocide are the only two things I wish I could just obliterate from the game. Ganging, hoing, whatever else doesn't bother me, but suicide bombers just annoy the crap out of me for some reason.
As Wiley suggests, this is likely to encourage some players to chose something else (the next best thing), but that next thing is likely to be less overwhelming. So I think this would actually improve game-play, as the mass Pony/Jug raids would be slightly less effective, and possibly less common.
The hordes of P51s or 47s I generally see are large enough to strafe down the entire field and town if they so chose. Reducing them from 2x1000 to 2x500 I don't think would have a measurable effect on their effectiveness. I sincerely doubt they'd be less common. The hordes would likely just need to be bigger to pick up the slack.
Wiley.
-
Yeah lets take away the 1k bombs on jabos, then the OP will be back in here saying perk all bombs cuz the hordes are upping 100 buffs to horde a base :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry
Try porking ords...it does help
-
Buff horde? An excuse to use a Ta-152 :banana: :x
-
there's always a group of people who try to compromise with the guy with dangerous ideas.
-
And I'm all about that. Bomb and bailers and jabocide are the only two things I wish I could just obliterate from the game. Ganging, hoing, whatever else doesn't bother me, but suicide bombers just annoy the crap out of me for some reason.
Wiley.
I totally agree. I am of the opinion that this is the worst behavior in the game and most detrimental to game play.
I wish there was a STEEP penalty in place for this kind of activity. If it were up to ME, I'd make it so that if you bomb-auger (crash, no critical damage, within seconds of dropping) or bomb-and-bail (bailed without critical damage to your bomber) you would lose the ability to carry ords for at least 12 hours in that arena. (So, you could still go to the TA and learn how to do it properly. :D)
<S>
-
Nothing is being "taken away" or "removed" by this suggestion, Zoney. You still have the option of using what you want. It's just like choosing to fly a tempest, -4 Hog or 262 -- you simply pay for the advantage they give.
In this case the suggestion is having to pay a few perks for the choice (advantage) of using 1000lb bombs on a fighter. You are still only "depositing" those perks, as you get them back when you land. The idea is to have a cost deterrent for those who use (or mis-use, as the OP is suggesting) that load-out on fighter aircraft, especially when they are used so often in a kamikaze style of play.
As Wiley suggests, this is likely to encourage some players to chose something else (the next best thing), but that next thing is likely to be less overwhelming. So I think this would actually improve game-play, as the mass Pony/Jug raids would be slightly less effective, and possibly less common.
I for one would much rather see hordes of 110's porking bases than hordes of Ponies and P-47s porking bases or playing CV kamikaze.
On a side note: Adding the ability to perk various load-outs, and show that cost in the hanger, could be an interesting feature in the game in general. It could allow for a wider array of available load-outs (or aircraft features) offered in the hanger, with the traditional or more historically used (higher production) items being free and the more obscure or advantageous ones coming at a cost.
<S>
Well said :salute
-
After reading this entire thread I am at a loss to understand why those asking for perked ordinance loads belive that taking something away makes the game any better.
Is it because you are GV'ers and are tired of being bombed ?
I don't have a pony in this race because I very seldom, maybe once a month, up a fighter with ords.
I do see many threads pop up where some folks want to take something from other folks who enjoy what is being attempted to remove.
Really dude :mad:
-
After reading this entire thread I am at a loss to understand why those asking for perked ordinance loads belive that taking something away makes the game any better.
Is it because you are GV'ers and are tired of being bombed ?
I don't have a pony in this race because I very seldom, maybe once a month, up a fighter with ords.
I do see many threads pop up where some folks want to take something from other folks who enjoy what is being attempted to remove.
Zoney, no where in this thread did is ask for anything to be removed. As a guy who almost exclusively flys Jugs, what I'm asking for certainly effects me personally. My wish is based strictly on diversity of gameplay. If there wasn't a perk system already in place the skies would be filled with nothing but 262s and 163s and the game would be pretty boring.
-
+1 it would solve bish horde a little bit
-
Now if we could get bombs on my 262.