Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Widewing on August 12, 2013, 11:13:27 AM

Title: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Widewing on August 12, 2013, 11:13:27 AM
Having visited several WWII vintage military installations, I've looked into a few ordnance bunkers. Often, those used to store bombs were made from reinforced concrete, and many were under several feet of earth as well. Day to day ordnance was stored in similar bunkers or in special revetments made with concrete or brick blast walls. These all were very robust structures, for obvious reasons.

In the ETO, at front line airfields (typically that of the 9th AF), ordnance was stored in sand bagged or bulldozed revetments, or in temporary buildings that were similar to any other Nissen type hut used for all purposes. Only the ordnance used that day would be near the field. These storage locations were a safe distance from the airfield proper, and carefully cammo'd to hide them from aerial detection. A centralized bunker complex would supply the fields via truck.

In the game, almost any fighter can destroy the ordnance bunkers with gunfire. This allows one guy to completely change game play with one suicidal fighter run. I think it should be harder to disable ordnance.

My wish is that the bunkers be hardened to require at least the same weight of ordnance as the Vehicle Hanger. Inasmuch as this is simply a map setting, it should require a minimum of effort, assuming HTC agrees with me....

Thanks.

 
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Tracerfi on August 12, 2013, 11:23:31 AM
i would have to agree i dont like that only need i short burst of .50 cal fire to kill it
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Tank-Ace on August 12, 2013, 11:26:53 AM
I'd be fine with this, as long as there was only one bunker. You've got to make concessions for game play.

I'd also say one AP or SAP bomb should do it, to give the new ordnance some actual tactical advantage.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: HighTone on August 12, 2013, 12:16:19 PM
I'd be fine with this, as long as there was only one bunker. You've got to make concessions for game play.

I'd also say one AP or SAP bomb should do it, to give the new ordnance some actual tactical advantage.

Damnation....I'm in agreement with Tank.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: uptown on August 12, 2013, 12:57:01 PM
Sounds reasonable to me <shrugs>  :salute
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: tuba515 on August 12, 2013, 01:08:52 PM
ya that sounds more realistic and reasonable +1
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Tinkles on August 12, 2013, 01:29:44 PM
Damnation....I'm in agreement with Tank.

 :rofl

+1 to wish and tank's addition   :aok


Tinkles

<<S>>
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: VonMessa on August 12, 2013, 01:30:56 PM
I would like to see a more dramatic explosion when they are finally breached, hopefully taking anything within a few hundred feet along with it...
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 01:40:10 PM
I would like to see a more dramatic explosion when they are finally breached, hopefully taking anything within a few hundred feet along with it...

Yes, there should be as much frame sucking pyrotechnics as possible to mark the success of blowing up the uber-ammo-bunker.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: VonMessa on August 12, 2013, 01:47:42 PM
Yes, there should be as much frame sucking pyrotechnics as possible to mark the success of blowing up the uber-ammo-bunker.

That was world record quick  :x

(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii254/ben5sing/fishing_1_smiley.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/ben5sing/media/fishing_1_smiley.gif.html)

Should it not be so?

It is filled with ordinance, it is not like a hanger which is essentially an empty building...

Are you saying you don't like frame rates like an etch-a-sketch?
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 01:53:18 PM
Are you saying you don't like frame rates like an etch-a-sketch?

Talk about quick.  ;) :lol
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: VonMessa on August 12, 2013, 01:58:41 PM
Talk about quick.  ;) :lol

Well, could we compromise and at least make it REALLY loud when it explodes?
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Tank-Ace on August 12, 2013, 02:00:10 PM
Something else occurred. The bunker would need to be relatively large, if it's supposed to support the entire field. This would also fit with the increased hardness.

Perhaps have it be about the size of the VH, but significantly shorter (supposed to be sunken into the ground.).  It maybe we could just decapitate a FH in the object editor, and use the top to represent the bunker.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 02:01:03 PM
Well, could we compromise and at least make it REALLY loud when it explodes?

No .... my ears, sir. How about a sound file that plays a carnie saying 'We have a winner!'?
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: VonMessa on August 12, 2013, 02:01:47 PM
No .... my ears, sir. How about a sound file that plays a carnie saying 'We have a winner!'?

Now that may be an idea  :aok
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 02:05:07 PM
Now that may be an idea  :aok

 :D You have a decent sense of humor. I appreciate that.  :cheers:
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: surfinn on August 12, 2013, 02:11:30 PM
Arlo you could upgrade your computer so not every objection you have to a new idea about fire, smoke, clouds, and explosions is about "your" frame rate.

I don't like the idea personally. We already have a hard enough time taking ords away from hoards as it is.  Of course if ya want to move away from the base and not under the protection of the bases auto ack I'd be ok with that.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 02:17:19 PM
Arlo you could upgrade your computer so not every objection you have to a new idea about fire, smoke, clouds, and explosions is about "your" frame rate.

What makes you assume it's my PC and my experience that is my sole concern? My equipment is most likely in the average when it comes to this community. Speaking of, I'm a community man, always have been. I don't want to lose anyone to a proven problem exaggerated for no good reason.  Even higher end computers lose frames due to excessive smoke and fire in AHII. Unless it's a necessity (and Cod knows few things wished for, lately are), I'm not one to ask for things in the game that aren't necessary if it will hurt the community's frame-rate overall. Maybe that'll help you calibrate your selfish meter next time you decide to use it. :)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dQ5j26OXRu8/T2Z8ijj_IBI/AAAAAAAAA1g/0EBhVgyRbpQ/s1600/tom-cruise-sunglasses.gif)
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: surfinn on August 12, 2013, 02:24:27 PM
Read a lot of your post about frame rates assumed it was personal motivation. If I was wrong then I was and will say  :salute to you for being a community man. However the argument of keep things the way they are in the eye candy department is about retaining our current members is not valid I think. I'd like to see a pole that says people would quit if they had to upgrade their computer. Then I would like to see a projection of possible new members that could be had with better graphics.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 02:31:30 PM
Read a lot of your post about frame rates assumed it was personal motivation. If I was wrong then I was and will say  :salute to you for being a community man. However the argument of keep things the way they are in the eye candy department is about retaining our current members is not valid I think. I'd like to see a pole that says people would quit if they had to upgrade their computer. Then I would like to see a projection of possible new members that could be had with better graphics.

You may want to take into consideration that Hitech Creations is not Electronic Arts and that there may actually be 'improvements' we ask for that tax their bottom line. It's a double bladed axe. If what someone asks for in this game as an 'enhancement' isn't drastically necessary then perhaps it isn't a critical thing, eh? Turn your question around (this is a typical litmus test) - do you intend to quit if blowing up an ammo bunker isn't a 4th of July fireworks show?

Granted, we all mention wants (take the carrier catapult thread I participated in) .... but honestly, there are pretty much no needs I see in AHII today.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: surfinn on August 12, 2013, 02:33:09 PM
good point and nope :aok
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: VonMessa on August 12, 2013, 02:38:50 PM
I don't think it is a terrible idea that Widewing has, I was just always curious as to why the destruction of the ordinance bunker was never any more dramatic than the destruction of any other object...
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 02:47:53 PM
I don't think it is a terrible idea that Widewing has, I was just always curious as to why the destruction of the ordinance bunker was never any more dramatic than the destruction of any other object...

Probably ... ahem ...  ;) .... framerate.  :D
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: waystin2 on August 12, 2013, 02:50:40 PM
I agree with one caveat, increase the resupply accordingly or have a preset time down like a hangar.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Zacherof on August 12, 2013, 02:51:11 PM
Probably ... ahem ...  ;) .... framerate.  :D
I foresee me dropping ords, kill ammo bunker*enter big boom and flashy embers and smoke*
Then lots of lagging :banana: into the radar antenna :furious
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: pembquist on August 12, 2013, 02:51:21 PM
If you drive the tank you like the bunker weak, if you drive the arrow plane you like the bunker strong, if you drive the PT boat you question the justice of getting your torpedoes from an airfield and your boats from a hanger.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 02:54:47 PM
If you drive the tank you like the bunker weak, if you drive the arrow plane you like the bunker strong, if you drive the PT boat you question the justice of getting your torpedoes from an airfield and your boats from a hanger.

LOL!

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KSB6lZfHL0k/UX-itoraKeI/AAAAAAAALh0/to-I16Zl_84/s1600/Ricky-Gervais.gif)
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: VonMessa on August 12, 2013, 03:05:34 PM
Probably ... ahem ...  ;) .... framerate.  :D

There you go with that science crap, again...  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 12, 2013, 03:12:51 PM
There you go with that science crap, again...  :rolleyes:

(http://gifs.gifmania.co.il/Animated-Gifs-Star-Trek/Animations-Spock/spock20.gif)

(http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/animated-gifs-28-08.gif)
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: SmokinLoon on August 12, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
I actually think HTC needs to rethink the entire hardness setting for ALL of their OBJ's.  First, as the subject of this thread suggests the reinforced concrete bunkers **should** be a bit resistant to MG and aircraft cannon fire.  Currently, a single pass from the P51D can easily knock out an ordnance bunker.  Likewise, those plywood and canvass constructed barracks should be able to be destroyed by a long burst of 6/.50 cal MG's.  Fuel tanks?  Radar towers? Town buildings?

Me thinks that HTC is holding on to the old standard of "two shots" for the average tank HE (156 lbs of damage), to destroy an OBJ.  Why?  Only they know.  I think however, that if they would give a nod to realism that there would be no negative effect on game play.  In fact, it would diversify and expand game play, imo.  If barracks were to be reduced down to a hardness of 234 lbs, ordnance bunkers increased to 468 lbs of hardness (that is simply an increase/decrease by %33), that would give the cannon and ordnance carrying planes their due.  On the same token, a radar tower should not be able to be brought down by a burst of .50 cal either.  Getting enough hits in an area that would weaken the tower enough would be very difficult to do, hence the need for ordnance and cannon.  Regarding the barracks, I can count the number of times on one hand that I've seen a mission with the sole purpose of disabling barracks at an airfield on one hand.  On vehicle bases it is easy as pie and it happens a lot, but airfields the barracks are spread out and not easily destroyed by 1 guy, and in many cases 2 guys have difficulty getting the job done.  Make it so those 8 barracks can be destroyed, how often has an airfield been held back by not having barracks???  Oh, and while I'm at it bring fuel back in to play: the %75 max fuel restriction is a non-issue.  It prohibits nothing from upping under their normal conditions and allow them to perform their mission %99 as they would have with %100 fuel and DT.  Reduce it to %50 and you'll have added another strategic element to AH.  Town buildings???  I think HTC missed the boat when they put all that work in to upgrading the town, they could have/should have (imo) put 3 or 4 different sizes of buildings in the town with hardness settings of 103, 156, 234, and 468lbs. 

AH does have a lot of same same settings that do not lend towards realism and offer nothing towards better or easier game play.  A nod towards "realism", whatever it may be would do AH some good. 
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: surfinn on August 12, 2013, 10:11:37 PM
-1 to everything stoned one just said
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: asterix on August 13, 2013, 05:41:21 AM
I'd be fine with this, as long as there was only one bunker. You've got to make concessions for game play.

I'd also say one AP or SAP bomb should do it, to give the new ordnance some actual tactical advantage.
What do you mean by only one bunker. Instead of 2, 3 or 4 you would like to have a single bunker? If that is the case it could easily be taken out by a buff or a jabo in a single run.

Anyway +1 for increasing the hardness of the ords bunkers by some amount so that it couldn`t be strafed that easily. Hangar level seems too much, 1000lb maybe.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Chalenge on August 13, 2013, 05:56:13 AM
The ammo bunker we have is for the sake of the game I think. It's not supposed to be realistic, but instead it's just like an icon. Now, admittedly the ammo bunkers are rather fragile. Nearly any late war plane is able to take them down in one pass. The same is also true of everything else on the base. Aircraft, for instance, never depended on hangars. They had hardened revetments that made it very difficult to strafe, or bomb aircraft. Vehicle hangars were actually depots a lot like fuel and ordnance. But, again, it's for the sake of a game. If you harden these things up then it will take even larger hordes to capture a base.

Maybe it's a macho thing. We seem to be stuck in a tug-of-war between adding features that make base-rolling harder, and then we ask that it get dialed back because it's too hard.

I say leave this one alone.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: SmokinLoon on August 13, 2013, 07:52:47 AM
The ammo bunker we have is for the sake of the game I think. It's not supposed to be realistic, but instead it's just like an icon. Now, admittedly the ammo bunkers are rather fragile. Nearly any late war plane is able to take them down in one pass. The same is also true of everything else on the base. Aircraft, for instance, never depended on hangars. They had hardened revetments that made it very difficult to strafe, or bomb aircraft. Vehicle hangars were actually depots a lot like fuel and ordnance. But, again, it's for the sake of a game. If you harden these things up then it will take even larger hordes to capture a base.

Maybe it's a macho thing. We seem to be stuck in a tug-of-war between adding features that make base-rolling harder, and then we ask that it get dialed back because it's too hard.

I say leave this one alone.

I see your point on the "feature/icon" thing, but that is precisely my counter point in shaking up the hardness settings.  Currently, everything is exactly the same with the same results, at least on paper.  Destroy X and prohibit Y from happening.  The ordnance and barracks are the only offensive inhibitors that are factors at a base, the radar is defensive and so is AAA.  Town buildings too.  Fuel tanks are a non-issue with the maximum penalty being %75.

I do not think it matters if an FM2, P51B, B-239, Oscar, or other such plane in the LW arena is unable to gun down an ordnance bunker.  How often do we see them used in the jabo role with guns only anyways?

I'm tipping my hat towards realism not for the sake of limiting the hordes, but rather to diversify and broaden the differences in aircraft and gv's.   
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: icepac on August 13, 2013, 09:52:15 AM
I'm preparing my C202 for ord porking duty at this very moment.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Chalenge on August 13, 2013, 04:42:54 PM
I see your point on the "feature/icon" thing, but that is precisely my counter point in shaking up the hardness settings.  Currently, everything is exactly the same with the same results, at least on paper.  Destroy X and prohibit Y from happening.  The ordnance and barracks are the only offensive inhibitors that are factors at a base, the radar is defensive and so is AAA.  Town buildings too.  Fuel tanks are a non-issue with the maximum penalty being %75.

I do not think it matters if an FM2, P51B, B-239, Oscar, or other such plane in the LW arena is unable to gun down an ordnance bunker.  How often do we see them used in the jabo role with guns only anyways?

I'm tipping my hat towards realism not for the sake of limiting the hordes, but rather to diversify and broaden the differences in aircraft and gv's.   

That being the case the one thing I mentioned that you failed to mention is hangars. If revetments were used instead of hangars, and the requirements to kill them were something like a high percentage destroyed, then bases would be much harder to take down. Hangars/revetments are very important for offensive and defensive capabilities. Cannon equipped aircraft can take a base down as fast as any bomber.

Like I said about hardening bunkers though; the end result will still be that the hordes will only grow in size.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: EagleDNY on August 14, 2013, 01:42:33 PM
Having visited several WWII vintage military installations, I've looked into a few ordnance bunkers. Often, those used to store bombs were made from reinforced concrete, and many were under several feet of earth as well. Day to day ordnance was stored in similar bunkers or in special revetments made with concrete or brick blast walls. These all were very robust structures, for obvious reasons.

In the ETO, at front line airfields (typically that of the 9th AF), ordnance was stored in sand bagged or bulldozed revetments, or in temporary buildings that were similar to any other Nissen type hut used for all purposes. Only the ordnance used that day would be near the field. These storage locations were a safe distance from the airfield proper, and carefully cammo'd to hide them from aerial detection. A centralized bunker complex would supply the fields via truck.

In the game, almost any fighter can destroy the ordnance bunkers with gunfire. This allows one guy to completely change game play with one suicidal fighter run. I think it should be harder to disable ordnance.

My wish is that the bunkers be hardened to require at least the same weight of ordnance as the Vehicle Hanger. Inasmuch as this is simply a map setting, it should require a minimum of effort, assuming HTC agrees with me....

Thanks.

 

I do like the idea of hardening the ammo bunkers - it is ridiculous to watch someone strafing down a hardened, concrete bunker with one pass of .50 cal MGs. 

I would also like to see the hardness done by the SIZE of the field.   A frontline grass field (S) might have just a sandbagged hole in the ground with some metal plating over it for a bomb dump while a rear-area bomber base would have reinforced concrete.  I'd suggest hardness of ammo bunkers of 500Lb for a S field, going up to 1000Lbs for a M, and 2000Lbs at a L field. 

$.02
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Randy1 on August 14, 2013, 03:28:22 PM

. . . I'd suggest hardness of ammo bunkers of 500Lb for a S field, going up to 1000Lbs for a M, and 2000Lbs at a L field. 
. . .

Now that is well thought out.  :aok  +1
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: SmokinLoon on August 14, 2013, 03:33:02 PM
That being the case the one thing I mentioned that you failed to mention is hangars. If revetments were used instead of hangars, and the requirements to kill them were something like a high percentage destroyed, then bases would be much harder to take down. Hangars/revetments are very important for offensive and defensive capabilities. Cannon equipped aircraft can take a base down as fast as any bomber.

Like I said about hardening bunkers though; the end result will still be that the hordes will only grow in size.

I didn't mention the hanger vs revetment because I didn't feel the need to agree or disagree, or even to voice my opinion on the current hanger hardness.  Since you brought it up though I think it is far too easy to shut down a field and more in specific it is far too easy for a single engine fighter (like the P51D) to bring down a hanger.  If HTC wanted to test the waters a wee bit and change the hardness settings of the VH w/o effecting game play much they could increase the hardness to 3000 lbs even and make it impossible for a P51D to destroy a hanger in a single pass with ords alone (max ord damage for P51D is 2936 lbs).  There would only be three single engine planes left that could get the job done in 1 pass.  

On increasing the hardness for ord bunkers = larger hordes debate.... I disagree.  Ord bunkers would still be a 1 man job, it would simply take a more mission specific load out and the typical 1 pass/2 ord bunkers destroyed via P51D would be a thing of the past.  Ordnance or cannons would be needed, typically.  On the other hand, barracks would be a viable target of the P51D's guns because the light construction of the canvass and plywood.  Give and take. The FM2's quad .50's would be a viable weapon vs barracks.  There are 5 barracks on a small airfield, even more on a medium airfield and even more on a large airfield.      
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Chalenge on August 14, 2013, 10:57:24 PM
Ironic. You're arguing two sides of the same coin. You want ordnance to be harder because it was in real life, but you want hangars unrealistic in hardness whereas in reality a 100lb bomb would destroy a hangar. Also, if you take the hangar killing capabilities of the pony away, then very few ponies will carry bombs at all. Why would anyone load up with something that won't kill anything? For dar and ordnance?

Why not just argue that you want certain planes removed, or the population of AH decreased by 60%? It's the same thing.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Volron on August 15, 2013, 12:22:57 PM
If you drive the tank you like the bunker weak, if you drive the arrow plane you like the bunker strong, if you drive the PT boat you question the justice of getting your torpedoes from an airfield and your boats from a hanger.

 :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Arlo on August 15, 2013, 12:30:15 PM
If we go into what realistically did what in WWII vs AHII, whether it's object hardness, ord damage, how long something should be disabled or how long it really took to reload/refuel (repair for that matter), the very existence of spawning anywhere other than a plane hangar (or flightline), vehicle 'hangar' or dockside (for PTs), what it really took to capture towns (and, as a result, bases and ports) ... then this kind of wish becomes practically impractical.  ;)
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: guncrasher on August 15, 2013, 12:32:55 PM
i would have to agree i dont like that only need i short burst of .50 cal fire to kill it

you need more than a short burst to kill a bunker.


semp
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Tracerfi on August 15, 2013, 03:09:21 PM
you need more than a short burst to kill a bunker.


semp
i was exaggerating
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Patches1 on August 15, 2013, 05:17:42 PM
How about leaving the field ord bunkers and hardness as they currently are and simply add a hardened ord bunker away from the field. Tie the hardened ord bunker downtime to the strat ord bunkers and have the hardened ord bunker re-supply the field ord bunkers via gvs with field supplies from a hot pad at the hardened ord bunker. Perhaps this same idea can be added to the fuel bunkers also which could possibly allow fuel bunkers to drop to 25%, or even 0%. Put the hardness value of hardened bunkers somewhere between 20,000-30,000 lbs and allow them to be resupplied from the nearest friendly airfield, or gv spawn point at a rate similar to the HQ.

I like realism in games, but I also want to keep playing a game that is fun. Too much reality takes away from the fun of the game, and too much gaminess takes away the fun of the reality, for me. I think the above is a fair compromise between the two.

...just some thoughts.

 :salute

Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: j500ss on August 15, 2013, 05:22:28 PM
Can't help but agree with the OP on this.   Increasing the ords to at least take several passes or a small bomb to get them down is not unrealistic at all by any means, and for what it would actually take for HTC to implement.......  Not much work into this at all on their end.

More often than not actually there is little reason to drop ords if your in the business to take a base.  Over all game play would only be affected in such a way that you may actually have to work a bit harder to achieve getting them down vs just a gun and run like all  :bolt:


 :salute

Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: SmokinLoon on August 15, 2013, 06:10:51 PM
Ironic. You're arguing two sides of the same coin. You want ordnance to be harder because it was in real life, but you want hangars unrealistic in hardness whereas in reality a 100lb bomb would destroy a hangar. Also, if you take the hangar killing capabilities of the pony away, then very few ponies will carry bombs at all. Why would anyone load up with something that won't kill anything? For dar and ordnance?

Why not just argue that you want certain planes removed, or the population of AH decreased by 60%? It's the same thing.

*sigh*... keep reaching.  Keep reaching.   :bhead

HTC is trying to balance game play and realism, I'm not sure how they arrive at the one shoe fits all hardness setting.  My stance is simple: ammo bunkers and barracks are on the opposite ends of the hardness spectrum (reinforced concrete vs plywood and canvass, not to mention the # of targets on each base).  Hangers, the root of spawning aircraft and gv's, are far too easy to destroy especially with a single aircraft.  Period.  I wouldn't even bring up having multiple sets of bombers flying over dropping tons of ammo, that is a far better nod towards better gameplay and realism than a horde of P51D's that many will argue didn't carry both bombs and rockets at the same time (not my fight either way, I'm not a fanboi or anti-fanboi of the P51x). 

Just because a P51D cant bring down a hanger in 1 pass with ordnance (per my suggestion), doesn't mean it can't or wont come back for pass #2 and/or #3 and finish the job with the guns.  Don't be so dense.  There is no parallel in what your saying I'm suggesting (remove planes/reduce players).  Idiocy.  But then again you're very good at that.  Your attitude and interaction towards others is rather lacking. 

On the OBJ hardness settings: If we take a look at just how often actions are stopped because of ordnance being unavailable, vs the actions of fuel being maxed at %75, or troops being disabled, I think it is safe to say that ordnance is THEE major winner by a long shot.  Only on rare occasion are troops unavailable and actually stop a base capture from happening, and never have I heard a player say on vox "I guess I can't take the La7/Spit/etc because I can only take %75 fuel".  I
m vouching for being both of them in to play (more directly the barracks).  If ords go down, and then barracks are easy enough to destroy, then the base resuppliers will only benefit more.  Right now, AH teeters on the ordnance bunkers and very little else (in terms of base strategic OBJ).  Bring it all in to play.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: whiteman on August 15, 2013, 06:21:13 PM
I want the 4th of july fire works explosion if i have to drop a 1k bomb on it.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: VonMessa on August 16, 2013, 07:22:04 AM
I want the 4th of july fire works explosion if i have to drop a 1k bomb on it.

I like how you think  :aok
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Tilt on August 16, 2013, 10:39:56 AM
I agree with the OP.......... always held this view re bunkers.............

I note debate re hangers................hanger s as used in AH never really existed IMO. Whilst we can draw the link between ammo dumps held at air fields in RL and Ammo bunkers in AH and we can draw a link re fuel dumps in RL and the AH ones............ the link re RL hangers and a the availability of air craft is more tenuous. Aircraft were not parked up in hangers they were scattered around airfields................ making the availability of aircraft subject to hanger health is a misnomer IMO.

Hangers were where stuff was done aircraft repaired or supplies made  up.

I would prefer a model where aircraft and vehicles were always available but ordinance and fuel was subject to attrition to a point where such rides would be rendered inoperable.

e.g as follows

Hangers linked to supplies and the capability of re arm pads.
Barracks linked purely to troops, infantry etc
Ordinance (much harder) linked to Rockets & Bombs as now plus heavy shells.
Fuel (either harder or a lot more fuel dumps (2 or 3 times) than present) linked to fuel available as now plus when @0% no fuel would be available.

To close a field down the enemy has to destroy all the fuel but with even a 15 minute resupply time taking out all the  fuel objects should create an overlap never greater than a  couple of minutes. If the game play forces too long an over lap (total closure) then reduce the resupply time to achieve balance, basically the fuel would need near constant attrition to keep a base closed over time. At zero fuel nothing is available from the hanger. (some sort of clock advising time to availability would help in the hanger)

To deny heavy ordinance (greater than 40mm?) take the ammo bunkers down to 0%. This will also deny access to medium and heavy tanks or any thing that cannot load  ordinance  40mm or less.

To deny supplies & re arm pads take all the hangers down. A sophistication could be to link the hangers to the rebuild/resupply rates of (or add a fixed delay time to) other field objects (but not town objects). In this way killing all the hangers would not directly disable access to vehicles, boats or air craft  (as now)but would extend the time that fuel was delayed during its  re supply.

Now ordinance & fuel objects have a function at Vehicle fields. Fuel becomes the prime point of attrition but one that must be almost permanently under attrition to deny players access to AC & GV's. However the level of attrition required is reduced if all the hangers are down.
Title: Re: Ordnance bunkers
Post by: Lab Rat 3947 on August 18, 2013, 11:05:33 PM
Quote
Hangers linked to supplies and the capability of re arm pads.
Barracks linked purely to troops, infantry etc
Ordinance (much harder) linked to Rockets & Bombs as now plus heavy shells.
Fuel (either harder or a lot more fuel dumps (2 or 3 times) than present) linked to fuel available as now plus when @0% no fuel would be available.

To close a field down the enemy has to destroy all the fuel but with even a 15 minute resupply time taking out all the  fuel objects should create an overlap never greater than a  couple of minutes. If the game play forces too long an over lap (total closure) then reduce the resupply time to achieve balance, basically the fuel would need near constant attrition to keep a base closed over time. At zero fuel nothing is available from the hanger. (some sort of clock advising time to availability would help in the hanger)

To deny heavy ordinance (greater than 40mm?) take the ammo bunkers down to 0%. This will also deny access to medium and heavy tanks or any thing that cannot load  ordinance  40mm or less.

To deny supplies & re arm pads take all the hangers down. A sophistication could be to link the hangers to the rebuild/resupply rates of (or add a fixed delay time to) other field objects (but not town objects). In this way killing all the hangers would not directly disable access to vehicles, boats or air craft  (as now)but would extend the time that fuel was delayed during its  re supply.

Now ordinance & fuel objects have a function at Vehicle fields. Fuel becomes the prime point of attrition but one that must be almost permanently under attrition to deny players access to AC & GV's. However the level of attrition required is reduced if all the hangers are down.

+1   :aok


LtngRydr