Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Armkreuz on October 21, 2013, 09:24:58 AM
-
Hello Pilots...
What do you guys think of having options at the re-arm pad. Do you think it would be a good idea if we were able to change our fuel and bomb load out at the re-arm pad? Why not repairs? Here is an example WHY I would want this. Say for instance you originally started out with full load out of bombs and fuel. After you make it back to re-arm, the enemy has made it in close to your base. The flight hangers have been knocked out, so you can't get another plane with less fuel and bombs to fight them off the base. You have to carry full load of bombs and fuel to fight the enemy. While you are on the ground, why cant we get repairs and request less fuel and no bombs? Seems they would have been able to do this during the war instead of the latter.
Thanks
Armkreuz
-
I cant speak for HTC, but me thinks just swapping out rocket racks, bomb racks, fuel drop tanks, and ammo loads is a bit more involved than most people think.
If you REALLY need to change or swap out load outs then up a new aircraft. Oh? Can't up at the same field because of X reason? Then best make use of what you have or up from a different field. That is all part of the strategy if you will.
I say leave it as is. :)
-
OK...I am talking about going the OPPOSITE direction you are speaking of. If the loadout bothers you or it takes more time than usual, then don't let the pilot ADD to his loadout. I am speaking of LESS of a loadout. Let him have the option of taking no bombs and half fuel so the pilot has a chance to get his plane up to defend the base. I don't think time would be an issue with less of a load,....Would it?
-
+1
I have always liked this option. I know it is a bit more involved than simply selecting a new loadout but it could add to the game in a manner that harms reality very little.
How many of these birds hotloaded in real life? I am guessing Navy planes did frequently. Spits during the Battle of Britian. German planes frequently. Maybe to keep it as realistic as possible if you hotload and choose to not add the bomb you still keep the rack and with it the 5-10mph speed penalty. Same with rockets, etc.
Boo
-
How many of these birds hotloaded in real life? I am guessing Navy planes did frequently. Spits during the Battle of Britian. German planes frequently. Maybe to keep it as realistic as possible if you hotload and choose to not add the bomb you still keep the rack and with it the 5-10mph speed penalty. Same with rockets, etc.
Boo
that being the case, it would be just as easy to dump the ords and/or dt once your reloaded and taxiing out to the runway...<wish granted>
-
Hello Pilots...
What do you guys think of having options at the re-arm pad. Do you think it would be a good idea if we were able to change our fuel and bomb load out at the re-arm pad? Why not repairs? Here is an example WHY I would want this. Say for instance you originally started out with full load out of bombs and fuel. After you make it back to re-arm, the enemy has made it in close to your base. The flight hangers have been knocked out, so you can't get another plane with less fuel and bombs to fight them off the base. You have to carry full load of bombs and fuel to fight the enemy. While you are on the ground, why cant we get repairs and request less fuel and no bombs? Seems they would have been able to do this during the war instead of the latter.
Thanks
Armkreuz
a plane upping in ww2 with less than 100% fuel. yeah right.
semp
-
OK....Then give the option to DUMP the fuel to half a tank after takeoff. ( I guess wasting a bomb doesn't matter. It's just a game huh) I don't think that a pilot that is needing to get to the air to fight off bandits at their base would tell the reload guy...FILL er up. I need all the weight I can get to fight off these bad guys. I DO think a pilot WOULD take off with less than a full tank to have a weight advantage for dogfighting near the base. If YOU would like to fight with a full tank at all times, by all means fill er up. You could still have that option.
-
OK....Then give the option to DUMP the fuel to half a tank after takeoff. ( I guess wasting a bomb doesn't matter. It's just a game huh) I don't think that a pilot that is needing to get to the air to fight off bandits at their base would tell the reload guy...FILL er up. I need all the weight I can get to fight off these bad guys. I DO think a pilot WOULD take off with less than a full tank to have a weight advantage for dogfighting near the base. If YOU would like to fight with a full tank at all times, by all means fill er up. You could still have that option.
(http://rvofcp.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/oh-boy-here-we-go.jpeg)
i dare you to find a single account of a pilot that demanded less than 100% fuel in his plane so he could go into a combat situation with it...
-
Look buddy...
I put this on as a "WISH" in the wishlist. I didn't put it on here to debate you or your so called WW2 mandatory full fuel loadout. If you like, fill your tanks and add drop tanks too. I don't CARE. This suggestion seems very simple and straight forward to me. Add the option to take less. Pretty simple....I thought. I guess we need to take the option out in the hanger to JUST load 100% fuel....that is if we are going with that 100% fuel at all times nonsense. According to your view, those options of 25, 50, 75 % fuel is unrealistic....right?
Thanks
Armkreuz
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/ahss2_zpsfff45e08.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/ahss3_zps58539fcc.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/ahss4_zpsaab02dbd.png)
:D
-
ok then... I still vote NO so as to not waste the time and resources of HTC's. :D
-
ok then... I still vote NO so as to not waste the time and resources of HTC's. :D
It's only a waste of time and resource if it accomplishes nothing. THIS would be great for events (and is doable).;)
-
I'm giving this one a big NO. Way too many options between the realistic(150 rounds to 200 rounds for 20mm hub cannon) to the rediculous(swap out my 20mm hub cannon for Das Tater). Keep it simple and fair - end sortee to cange loadout.
-
I'm giving this one a big NO. Way too many options between the realistic(150 rounds to 200 rounds for 20mm hub cannon) to the rediculous(swap out my 20mm hub cannon for Das Tater). Keep it simple and fair - end sortee to cange loadout.
Fair? What's unfair? Simple? Just as simple as de-materializing from the plane you stopped on the runway, re-materializing in the tower then re-materializing in the hangar, choosing an entirely different configuration (or plane, for that matter) even from a different nation of origin then re-materializing on the runway. At least with the re-arm pad you are still going to be in the same plane and in the same condition (I re-upped missing an elevator or aileron in events before). And, once again, in one-life events going to the hangar between sorties isn't an option. But changing your fuel or loadout would be nice.
Anyhoo ..... those dead-set against it ... will be. Those who are for it .... will be. Anything in between may or may not give it a second thought.
-
I think if you have those options in the hanger, then why not have those same options on the re-arm pad. What would it hurt. It takes 30 seconds now to re-load on re-arm. Should take less time to reload less fuel and no bombs. I would be fine with the same 30 seconds across the board. Just give me the option to load less. If you load more, add 30 more seconds to loadout.
Oh...By the way...Nice interface you created there Arlo. Looks like that option belongs there.
Thanks
Armkreuz
-
Look buddy...
I put this on as a "WISH" in the wishlist. I didn't put it on here to debate you or your so called WW2 mandatory full fuel loadout. If you like, fill your tanks and add drop tanks too. I don't CARE. This suggestion seems very simple and straight forward to me. Add the option to take less. Pretty simple....I thought. I guess we need to take the option out in the hanger to JUST load 100% fuel....that is if we are going with that 100% fuel at all times nonsense. According to your view, those options of 25, 50, 75 % fuel is unrealistic....right?
Thanks
Armkreuz
Look buddy, this is a discussion board. He does not agree with you and offered his opinion in the discussion. if you do not want a discussion you can simply email HTC with your idea.
And -1 on your idea mate. :salute
-
It's only a waste of time and resource if it accomplishes nothing. THIS would be great for events (and is doable).;)
if it's for events, then absolutely NO...we shouldn't be able to make fuel choices in events as it is. since they are based on history it should be 100% fuel and a drop tank if you need extra flight time.
Look buddy...
I put this on as a "WISH" in the wishlist. I didn't put it on here to debate you or your so called WW2 mandatory full fuel loadout. If you like, fill your tanks and add drop tanks too. I don't CARE. This suggestion seems very simple and straight forward to me. Add the option to take less. Pretty simple....I thought. I guess we need to take the option out in the hanger to JUST load 100% fuel....that is if we are going with that 100% fuel at all times nonsense. According to your view, those options of 25, 50, 75 % fuel is unrealistic....right?
Thanks
Armkreuz
i don't recall adding you to my buddy list, and i'm not debating anything. you're the one that decided it was historically correct, so i'm daring you to prove it. if you can, i'll gladly help convince everyone else that it's the right thing to do.
until then, i don't have a problem with the bombs as long as the bomb racks remain attached to the plane. as far as fuel, if you want to game the game so bad, just pick 25% fuel with a drop tank as your default setup and drop the tank when you don't need it. easily done. people have been doing it for years.
-
if it's for events, then absolutely NO...we shouldn't be able to make fuel choices in events as it is. since they are based on history it should be 100% fuel and a drop tank if you need extra flight time.
Command (CiCs) makes the fuel and ord choices in events and would have greater flexibility to do so at the battle situation warrants with such a system. This would still keep you to one life and your craft to the damages sustained.
-
I have no problem adding any features to rearm pad...as long as we can take the rearm pad out with a bomb strike.
-
I have no problem adding any features to rearm pad...as long as we can take the rearm pad out with a bomb strike.
Taking out ord and hitting fuel. I agree both should have an effect on what you're trying to put on your plane both on the re-arm pad and in the hangar.
-
Well either way you look at it...If you land and need to refuel and re-arm, in real-life, you would have had the option to tell the ground crew what you needed. 100% fuel and 100% bomb load-out was not what every situation warranted. If I am trying to fight off an attack AT MY BASE, Its highly unlikely the ground crew would have an across the board load-out of bombs to go up and fight off an attack. It's just insane to think like that. It's not true. Lets see you take off and fight an attacking hoard with a full load. You wouldn't do it. Makes no sense to do so. Anyhoo...That's my suggestion. Take it as you will.
Thanks
Armkreuz
-
Well either way you look at it...If you land and need to refuel and re-arm, in real-life, you would have had the option to tell the ground crew what you needed. 100% fuel and 100% bomb load-out was not what every situation warranted. If I am trying to fight off an attack AT MY BASE, Its highly unlikely the ground crew would have an across the board load-out of bombs to go up and fight off an attack. It's just insane to think like that. It's not true. Lets see you take off and fight an attacking hoard with a full load. You wouldn't do it. Makes no sense to do so. Anyhoo...That's my suggestion. Take it as you will.
Thanks
Armkreuz
I never understood all the reason made up to hate this. *ShruG* I'm with you on this.
-
Well either way you look at it...If you land and need to refuel and re-arm, in real-life, you would have had the option to tell the ground crew what you needed. 100% fuel and 100% bomb load-out was not what every situation warranted. If I am trying to fight off an attack AT MY BASE, Its highly unlikely the ground crew would have an across the board load-out of bombs to go up and fight off an attack. It's just insane to think like that. It's not true. Lets see you take off and fight an attacking hoard with a full load. You wouldn't do it. Makes no sense to do so. Anyhoo...That's my suggestion. Take it as you will.
Thanks
Armkreuz
tell that to the 352nd fighter group at y-29 on january 1st 1945...
not much of a history reader are ya? :devil
-
tell that to the 352nd fighter group at y-29 on january 1st 1945...
not much of a history reader are ya? :devil
Gyrene, I love ya like an AHII brother but the history you are trying to spank Armkreus with (http://352ndfg.com/Y-29/legend.htm) has nothing to do with having options. Half the unit was up and the other was lifting. If they had any sort of warning prior to take-off, I'd be willing to bet that 'plan b' (no bombs, no drop-tanks) would have been the re-vamped order right there on the flight-line (even with this unit doing well, in spite of).
I read history. You read history. I bet Armkreus reads history. And lawd knows we all take from it what we want. :devil
-
Yea...I know my history...But you can always partially pull something from history to suit your needs for proof. As far as knowing what your favorite fighter groups flight schedules, load-outs or bathroom breaks were, I don't know. Don't care. I'll leave that history to your studies. As far as the re-arm pad goes. I like my suggestion and I hope the AH folk hear me. Thanks for the replies...Even the bashing ones.
I appreciate your well thought out comments too Arlo. Seems you have thought of this suggestion too.
Thanks
Armkreuz
-
Gyrene, I love ya like an AHII brother but the history you are trying to spank Armkreus with (http://352ndfg.com/Y-29/legend.htm) has nothing to do with having options. Half the unit was up and the other was lifting. If they had any sort of warning prior to take-off, I'd be willing to bet that 'plan b' (no bombs, no drop-tanks) would have been the re-vamped order right there on the flight-line (even with this unit doing well, in spite of).
I read history. You read history. I bet Armkreus reads history. And lawd knows we all take from it what we want. :devil
:neener: yes it does. the fuel option specifically should not exist, most especially in events. the planes that were in the air dropped their toys and went on the offensive. the planes that were waiting to take off were fully fueled and they did not have their ground crews siphon off fuel or pull the drop tanks before they took off. the pilots of the planes sitting on the sidelines did not run out and tell their ground crew to dump 50% of the fuel in their planes so they could dog fight better.
i have no problem with changing bomb loads or drop tanks, as long as they are stuck with the racks until they tower out.
-
:neener: yes it does. the fuel option specifically should not exist, most especially in events. the planes that were in the air dropped their toys and went on the offensive. the planes that were waiting to take off were fully fueled and they did not have their ground crews siphon off fuel or pull the drop tanks before they took off. the pilots of the planes sitting on the sidelines did not run out and tell their ground crew to dump 50% of the fuel in their planes so they could dog fight better.
i have no problem with changing bomb loads or drop tanks, as long as they are stuck with the racks until they tower out.
You don't think a skilled ground crew could strip off racks as fast as they could load ord?
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675069416_P-38-bombing-mission_P-38-Lightning_bomb-attached-under-the-wing_bomb-servicing-truck
And we're not talking about a fully fueled plane waiting to take off for it's first sortie. We're talking about planes on the turn-around. There's no 'siphoning' involved here. :D
'Joe, we got inbounds about ten minutes out or less. Save me time and weight.'
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338112.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,352304.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350449.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344633.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,337678.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322517.0.html
Just a few of the Wishes for the very same thing over the years. Doubt it has much of a chance this time either.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338112.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,352304.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350449.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344633.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,337678.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322517.0.html
Just a few of the Wishes for the very same thing over the years. Doubt it has much of a chance this time either.
Mmmmmbecause it's been wished for before? Guess the B-29 in the plane set supports this theory.
I clearly remember it not having a chance. ;)
-
Look buddy...
I put this on as a "WISH" in the wishlist. I didn't put it on here to debate you or your so called WW2 mandatory full fuel loadout. If you like, fill your tanks and add drop tanks too. I don't CARE. This suggestion seems very simple and straight forward to me. Add the option to take less. Pretty simple....I thought. I guess we need to take the option out in the hanger to JUST load 100% fuel....that is if we are going with that 100% fuel at all times nonsense. According to your view, those options of 25, 50, 75 % fuel is unrealistic....right?
Thanks
Armkreuz
well you did mention that in the war pilots would have asked for less than full tank.
but to the honest, we kindda try to simulate combat as close as possible. we arent even close to being "close" to how it was in the war but let's try not to add more gamey stuff to it.
semp
-
Mmmmmbecause it's been wished for before? Guess the B-29 in the plane set supports this theory.
I clearly remember it not having a chance. ;)
there's a difference, the b29 is a useless plane that we hardly see but it will cost you perks. the change loadout is a useless wish that only those who want to increase their score will use. the rest of us will just land and take off as it is faster, heck that's why we land wheels down. it removes several seconds from upping when in a hurry.
semp
-
there's a difference, the b29 is a useless plane that we hardly see but it will cost you perks. the change loadout is a useless wish that only those who want to increase their score will use. the rest of us will just land and take off as it is faster, heck that's why we land wheels down. it removes several seconds from upping when in a hurry.
semp
You've played in at least one event that limits you to one life, haven't you? You're confusing MA score with an actual usefulness in events.
-
You've played in at least one event that limits you to one life, haven't you? You're confusing MA score with an actual usefulness in events.
as far as I know the op asked for it for the ma. and no, i have yet to participate in one event where they used the b29.
semp
-
Why not repairs?
+1Why not Repairs? :D
-
+1Why not Repairs? :D
Now THAT .... I wouldn't go so far .....
-
You don't think a skilled ground crew could strip off racks as fast as they could load ord?
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675069416_P-38-bombing-mission_P-38-Lightning_bomb-attached-under-the-wing_bomb-servicing-truck
And we're not talking about a fully fueled plane waiting to take off for it's first sortie. We're talking about planes on the turn-around. There's no 'siphoning' involved here. :D
'Joe, we got inbounds about ten minutes out or less. Save me time and weight.'
uh oh, you went there Arlo? oh now you dun it... :D no they couldn't. take note, the film is clipped the entire sequence took longer, the bomb pylon is already mounted, that was just 1 bomb and the plane was not running. take that plane without the pylon attached and see what it takes to get a bomb on it. for that matter take the 109 and 190 and attach the etc 50/250 rack, wire it in and attach a bomb or drop tank...way longer than 10-20 minutes. be that as it may, i already said, more than once mind you, that i personally would not have a problem with bomb/drop tank loadouts as long as they are stuck with the racks until they tower out.
note the etc rack is already attached...
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/fighters/messerschmitt-bf-109-fighter/messerschmitt-bf-109-fighter-01.png)
when it comes to the fuel, that's a different story...
take note of the hand pump and lack of a gauge on the gas wagon...so how much fuel did you want? is that 10 or 20 pumps?
(http://ww2db.com/images/air_me109_31.jpg)
hand pump on a barrel...
(http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp202/ruspren/Bf109E-4StabJG-54a.jpg)
(http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii164/vvwse4/p51/11-P-51AMrsVirginiaRefueling.jpg)
some guys didn't have it so rough...
(http://www.airfields-freeman.com/HI/Haleiwa_HI_40s_P-47.jpg)
now, if you can find just one account of a pilot who intentionally told his ground crew to just put xx amount of fuel in so he could take off again and get into a fight with enemy planes...i'll drop my objections.
-
I've started flying 100% fuel in my 109. I'm now of the opinion that if you want to take less fuel, you're not a good enough pilot (save on planes like the P-47, P-38, and 110, where it's a big weight increase).
Anyway, grow a noodle, man up, and fly with the loadout you picked first.
-
I've started flying 100% fuel in my 109. I'm now of the opinion that if you want to take less fuel, you're not a good enough pilot (save on planes like the P-47, P-38, and 110, where it's a big weight increase).
Anyway, grow a noodle, man up, and fly with the loadout you picked first.
Well, the crew just has to reload the same ord and what-not cause it's a penile measuring thing now. :D
-
I've started flying 100% fuel in my 109. I'm now of the opinion that if you want to take less fuel, you're not a good enough pilot (save on planes like the P-47, P-38, and 110, where it's a big weight increase).
Anyway, grow a noodle, man up, and fly with the loadout you picked first.
You must fly round too much...I don't have enough bullets to support 1/2 a tank let alone a full 100% :D (and that's in a 109)
-
5 taters per kill, thats at least 12 kills. Say a nice even 10 kills. I'd have to be getting a shot on an aircraft once every 3 minutes to use up all my ammunition before I ran out of fuel, and thats if I started shooting off the runway :bolt:.
-
You must fly round too much...I don't have enough bullets to support 1/2 a tank let alone a full 100% :D (and that's in a 109)
i took 50% fuel in a 190 once, ran out of fuel before i ran out of ammo...had to ditch with my first and only 5 kill sortie that didn't include a single bomber kill. even though i will take a bomber up with 50% fuel if the run is going to be short...i'd rather run out of ammo than fuel.
-
Funny thing. It's a hangar option to take off with as little as 25% fuel. That tells the guys at the re-arm pad that you're not allowed to get any more than that until you trade your plane in.
Funny how 'logic' works in a re-arm pad option discussion. The side that want's none makes up the damnedest reasons. :D
-
So what you are saying...is...If an attack on your base is happening....Bombs are dropping all around and you are trying to get your aircraft up and flying, you would say to the man with the 55 gallon drum of fuel and a manual pump....Fill er up and put my bombs back on so I can get up there and fight em off. Sounds to me we have a vulcher and someone needs those planes kept slow so they can get easy kills. Just what it sounds like to me. I think since you made it back to re-arm pad, you should have the option of loading out what you want as you do in hanger. What does it matter and why should you care what I load on MY aircraft. I am doing the fighting. Why shouldn't I have the right to say what I want on my aircraft, since I am flying it. Situations change and so does the dynamics of a fight. So should the loadout.
-
Sounds to me we have a vulcher and someone needs those planes kept slow so they can get easy kills.
While I agree with your tactical assessment, please avoid such character assessments. There's neither
basis nor need.
You should not hit below the belt, hold, trip, kick, headbutt, wrestle, bite, spit on, or push your opponent.
You should not hit with your head, shoulder, forearm, or elbow.
You should not hit with an open glove, the inside of the glove, the wrist, the backhand, or the side of the hand.
You should not punch your opponent's back, or the back of his head or neck (rabbit punch), or on the kidneys (kidney punch).
You should not throw a punch while holding on to the ropes to gain leverage.
You shouldn't hold your opponent and hit him at the same time, or duck so low that your head is below your opponent's belt line.
etc ......
Yes, other posters may .... but they lose legitimacy when resorting to such.
(Still siding with ya.) :D
-
So what you are saying...is...If an attack on your base is happening....Bombs are dropping all around and you are trying to get your aircraft up and flying, you would say to the man with the 55 gallon drum of fuel and a manual pump....Fill er up and put my bombs back on so I can get up there and fight em off. Sounds to me we have a vulcher and someone needs those planes kept slow so they can get easy kills. Just what it sounds like to me. I think since you made it back to re-arm pad, you should have the option of loading out what you want as you do in hanger. What does it matter and why should you care what I load on MY aircraft. I am doing the fighting. Why shouldn't I have the right to say what I want on my aircraft, since I am flying it. Situations change and so does the dynamics of a fight. So should the loadout.
having reading comprehension issues i see...with consideration to the handicap i'll make an exception and reiterate something, which i'm not normally inclined to do...let me know if this isn't clear enough.
<snip>, i already said, more than once mind you, that i personally would not have a problem with bomb/drop tank loadouts as long as they are stuck with the racks until they tower out.
now, just in case that doesn't quite make it clear enough...
i don't have a problem with the bombs as long as the bomb racks remain attached to the plane.
since you went there with the real life drama, in real life, under a combat situation on an airbase being attacked, you would be in one of 2 places depending on how big your testicles really are...hiding in a bunker or manning a defensive gun on the field. trying to get an airplane cranked up, on the runway and in the air while the base is being attacked by enemy aircraft is suicide and you don't strike me as the john wayne hero type...
incidentally, i know this is difficult to grasp but, if the plane was flyable and wasn't being serviced in some manner, it would be sitting on the ready line 100% full of fuel and gun ammo.
-
incidentally, i know this is difficult to grasp but, if the plane was flyable and wasn't being serviced in some manner, it would be sitting on the ready line 100% full of fuel and gun ammo.
Does this mean you are advocating a change in hangar selection? There should be no 25%, 50% or 75% fuel options since all that would have been done in real life is 100%?
-
Does this mean you are advocating a change in hangar selection? There should be no 25%, 50% or 75% fuel options since all that would have been done in real life is 100%?
:rofl you're a rat ya know? :devil but i'll play along anyway. if it were up to me, there wouldn't be choice in fuel except 100% and drop tanks. sure that would require other changes as well. i can think of ways that would really make the strats the primo targets they should be, which in turn would change the locations of the hordes.
-
:rofl you're a rat ya know? :devil but i'll play along anyway. if it were up to me, there wouldn't be choice in fuel except 100% and drop tanks. sure that would require other changes as well. i can think of ways that would really make the strats the primo targets they should be, which in turn would change the locations of the hordes.
I did fly as a 'GroveRat' for awhile.
I know it's a slight deviation from op but ... I'd like to hear your ideas about practical changes that would make strategic targets important enough to influence strategy. They should be. :)
-
I have a question about the fuel. Why am I getting so much resistance for wanting control over my fuel load? Why do you care. I mean...What will it take away from you if I change my fuel load. You could do the same thing. It's my plane....Why would you care? I mean...here is another example. What if I had taken off the field with 50% fuel and no bombs. The fight ensues near the base. We beat em back. They start to retreat. I land for more fuel, but I THEN need to add fuel for farther fight AND I need bombs for a counter attack. You gonna whine about adding weight to the plane? Since I left with no bombs....I have to have bomb racks now. What do I do? Since you would penalize anyone who did away with bombs at re-arm pad by making them carry racks anyway, do I have to put bomb racks on or do I just carry em in the cockpit and drop em over the side? There is a point when the ying yanging gets silly. I think we have reached that point in this thread. I though common sense would prevail. I was obviously wrong in the "WISH" forum. I guess watch out what you wish for in here. Anyway....That is my wish....
-
I have a question about the fuel. Why am I getting so much resistance for wanting control over my fuel load? Why do you care. I mean...What will it take away from you if I change my fuel load. You could do the same thing. It's my plane....Why would you care? I mean...here is another example. What if I had taken off the field with 50% fuel and no bombs. The fight ensues near the base. We beat em back. They start to retreat. I land for more fuel, but I THEN need to add fuel for farther fight AND I need bombs for a counter attack. You gonna whine about adding weight to the plane? Since I left with no bombs....I have to have bomb racks now. What do I do? Since you would penalize anyone who did away with bombs at re-arm pad by making them carry racks anyway, do I have to put bomb racks on or do I just carry em in the cockpit and drop em over the side? There is a point when the ying yanging gets silly. I think we have reached that point in this thread. I though common sense would prevail. I was obviously wrong in the "WISH" forum. I guess watch out what you wish for in here. Anyway....That is my wish....
nobody likes to make it more gamey that what it already is. plan your sorties accordingly.
semp
-
Heck, just give us the option to take out the re-arm pad.
-
Heck, just give us the option to take out the re-arm pad.
That's a different wish. Sure. Even link it to the hangars being down. But that has nothing to do with offering re-arming/re-fueling options without towering.
-
I have a question about the fuel. Why am I getting so much resistance for wanting control over my fuel load? Why do you care. I mean...What will it take away from you if I change my fuel load. You could do the same thing. It's my plane....Why would you care? I mean...here is another example. What if I had taken off the field with 50% fuel and no bombs. The fight ensues near the base. We beat em back. They start to retreat. I land for more fuel, but I THEN need to add fuel for farther fight AND I need bombs for a counter attack. You gonna whine about adding weight to the plane? Since I left with no bombs....I have to have bomb racks now. What do I do? Since you would penalize anyone who did away with bombs at re-arm pad by making them carry racks anyway, do I have to put bomb racks on or do I just carry em in the cockpit and drop em over the side? There is a point when the ying yanging gets silly. I think we have reached that point in this thread. I though common sense would prevail. I was obviously wrong in the "WISH" forum. I guess watch out what you wish for in here. Anyway....That is my wish....
haven't been able to come up with a single real life instance yet i see...
-
haven't been able to come up with a single real life instance yet i see...
Thought you made that challenge to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOKXfZTEAE
:D
-
Thought you made that challenge to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOKXfZTEAE
:D
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol poopoo head...no the challenge wasn't to you.
i dare you to find a single account of a pilot that demanded less than 100% fuel in his plane so he could go into a combat situation with it...
and battle of britain the movie isn't a real life account. :neener:
-
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol poopoo head...no the challenge wasn't to you.
and battle of britain the movie isn't a real life account. :neener:
But it was based on one ... or several. Guess that leaves whether or not one believes that scene was accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_%28film%29
Interesting trivia:
Ron Goodwin's score opens with the "Luftwaffe March", later retitled "Aces High", in the style of a traditional German military march in 6/8 time.
During filming, Galland, who was acting as a German technical advisor, took exception to a scene where Kesselring is shown giving the Nazi salute, rather than the standard military salute. Journalist Leonard Mosley witnessed Galland spoiling the shooting and having to be escorted off the set. Galland subsequently threatened to withdraw from the production, warning "dire consequences for the film if the scene stayed in."[23] However, when the finished scene was screened before Galland and his lawyer, he was persuaded to accept the scene after all.
-
ya and my butt is based on a
But it was based on one ... or several. Guess that leaves whether or not one believes that scene was accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_%28film%29
hollywood dramatic license, i would have done the same thing since the pilot who was credited with giving that order was not around to say whether it was correct or not...
-
ya and my butt is based on a hollywood dramatic license, i would have done the same thing since the pilot who was credited with giving that order was not around to say whether it was correct or not...
Odds are, the Germans didn't give them time for everyone to fill their petrol tanks. Can we at least agree on that? ;)
-
Odds are, the Germans didn't give them time for everyone to fill their petrol tanks. Can we at least agree on that? ;)
to get the hell out of france and back to england? ok, sure, i agree. the prudent thing to do would be to try and get to another airbase where full service could be had before trying to cross the channel...
-
Personally I think if say ord is knocked out at a field then even the rearm pad shouldnt supply new bombs. the best you should be able to get is fuel and bullets.
Same thing with fuel If fuel is knocked down to 100% then drop tanks shouldnt be available. If knocked down to 75% then thats all you should be able to get even on the rearm pad
-
to get the hell out of france and back to england? ok, sure, i agree. the prudent thing to do would be to try and get to another airbase where full service could be had before trying to cross the channel...
Only had to fly one-way .... not like the Germans a few weeks later. :D
-
Personally I think if say ord is knocked out at a field then even the rearm pad shouldnt supply new bombs. the best you should be able to get is fuel and bullets.
Same thing with fuel If fuel is knocked down to 100% then drop tanks shouldnt be available. If knocked down to 75% then thats all you should be able to get even on the rearm pad
on that note, if like you say, rearm options were tied to base ords and fuel availability taking different amounts of fuel wouldn't be so objectionable. if fuel is at 100%, then all you can get is 100% (drop tank optional). if the fuel is at 75% then all you can get is 75% (no drop tanks), and so on until fuel supply at the base is at zero, then you can't refuel. for ords, if ords are up, get whatever you want. if ords are down, you get nothing.
take it a step further (may be way too complicated), affect the entire country by tying strats to ords and fuel and...add in resupply time. basic idea would be, if the fuel factory is leveled, country goes into fuel ration mode everywhere except the uncapturable bases (unless the uncapturable bases get leveled as well). even bases that are 100% operational can only get a max of 50% fuel in the hangar and on the rearm pad. if the base fuel is down, it won't come back up until the fuel factory is resupplied back to at least 25%. kill the ords factory and the base ords that are down won't come back up until the factory is resupplied to at least 25%.
sadly the strats used to be a more integral part of "the war effort"...now they are a circus side show with the crowds hanging out in hording vulch fests.
-
sadly the strats used to be a more integral part of "the war effort"...now they are a circus side show with the crowds hanging out in hording vulch fests.
Ultimately the types of enemy degradation of capability you're talking about to make the strats 'more useful' is not fun for most because it's quite possible (probable) that you'll log in for your limited play time in the evening and only have access to 25% fuel. This leaves you with the option to either fight severely hampered by the failures of your countrymen in the hours previous to your logging on, or you get to start playing Strat Resupply Hero before you can do anything, which is only fun for a limited segment of the game population.
As for the original wish, I'd say it should allow you to adjust your loadout based on the stuff you took off with. If your plane has permanent mounts for ord/DT's, you should be able to select them. If you took off with stuff that requires racks, you should be able to select those things. If you didn't, it shouldn't be available. As far as gun packages, ammo load differences should be allowed if they're there, adding/removing/changing guns shouldn't be allowed.
Wiley.
-
Ultimately the types of enemy degradation of capability you're talking about to make the strats 'more useful' is not fun for most because it's quite possible (probable) that you'll log in for your limited play time in the evening and only have access to 25% fuel. This leaves you with the option to either fight severely hampered by the failures of your countrymen in the hours previous to your logging on, or you get to start playing Strat Resupply Hero before you can do anything, which is only fun for a limited segment of the game population.
As for the original wish, I'd say it should allow you to adjust your loadout based on the stuff you took off with. If your plane has permanent mounts for ord/DT's, you should be able to select them. If you took off with stuff that requires racks, you should be able to select those things. If you didn't, it shouldn't be available. As far as gun packages, ammo load differences should be allowed if they're there, adding/removing/changing guns shouldn't be allowed.
Wiley.
Sounds simple enough, bearing in mind ignorance of what the difficulty in coding would be. :cheers:
-
i think it should be allowed on an aircraft carrier only. when that option is selected,have it take double the time
-
Hello Pilots...
What do you guys think of having options at the re-arm pad. Do you think it would be a good idea if we were able to change our fuel and bomb load out at the re-arm pad? Why not repairs? Here is an example WHY I would want this. Say for instance you originally started out with full load out of bombs and fuel. After you make it back to re-arm, the enemy has made it in close to your base. The flight hangers have been knocked out, so you can't get another plane with less fuel and bombs to fight them off the base. You have to carry full load of bombs and fuel to fight the enemy. While you are on the ground, why cant we get repairs and request less fuel and no bombs? Seems they would have been able to do this during the war instead of the latter.
Thanks
Armkreuz
:airplane: I have always suspected that the only reason for the rearm pads to begin with, is for the "scoreing" hounds in this game! What difference does it make to end your sortie with 2 kills or 12, just a difference in your over all score! The whole object of this "game" is the one on one combat and who comes out the winner, time and time again. The score you post is irrelative to the excitement of the this combat sim.
-
:airplane: I have always suspected that the only reason for the rearm pads to begin with, is for the "scoreing" hounds in this game! What difference does it make to end your sortie with 2 kills or 12, just a difference in your over all score! The whole object of this "game" is the one on one combat and who comes out the winner, time and time again. The score you post is irrelative to the excitement of the this combat sim.
I need to get you into events. Having a re-arm pad that offers load/ord options would make a huge difference in 'one-life and you're done for the frame' events. CiCs could instruct units to re-arm differently depending on the changing needs of the on-going battle.
This would not affect scoring in any arena, even the MA, since the OP is not asking for repair capability. A busted up bird that barely made it down isn't going to re-arm (or if they do, it's folly).
-
i think it should be allowed on an aircraft carrier only. when that option is selected,have it take double the time
Would it take double the time to load 500 lbers instead of 1000 lbers (or even visa versa)? Would it take double the time to not load drop-tanks?
-
I need to get you into events. Having a re-arm pad that offers load/ord options would make a huge difference in 'one-life and you're done for the frame' events. CiCs could instruct units to re-arm differently depending on the changing needs of the on-going battle.
that is the one and only instance where changing loadouts would be agreeable...with one caveat, no onboard fuel changes.
-
that is the one and only instance where changing loadouts would be agreeable...with one caveat, no onboard fuel changes.
Why? :)
(Before we go into the historical nuance, what I really mean is why would that be a huge deal? First, in an event where distance and fuel burn is critical, it's unlikely such would be required. Secondly, while I can see HTC making hangar options available on the RE pad, I'm not so sure only making some of them available would be as easy to code.)
-
historical accuracy notwithstanding, it would require new programming anyway and it would be actually be easier to code ordnance options alone than all hangar options.
-
historical accuracy notwithstanding, it would require new programming anyway and it would be actually be easier to code ordnance options alone than all hangar options.
How do you figure? The hangar options are already coded. Offering a window to the existing hangar options on the RA pad versus coding that actually changes those options sounds simpler to me.
-
How do you figure? The hangar options are already coded. Offering a window to the existing hangar options on the RA pad versus coding that actually changes those options sounds simpler to me.
the hangar options are not coded to the rearm pad...that would be required in order to access the hangar options anyway.
-
the hangar options are not coded to the rearm pad...that would be required in order to access the hangar options anyway.
Well yeah. But then you suggest an additional step.
-
Well yeah. But then you suggest an additional step.
what extra step? it's simply deleting or commenting out some code so that fuel doesn't even show up. and you don't even need the graphics. just a list of ordnance options.
(http://images.starpulse.com/news/bloggers/985874/blog_images/no-fuel.jpg)
-
what extra step? it's simply deleting or commenting out some code so that fuel doesn't even show up. and you don't even need the graphics. just a list of ordnance options.
Do either of us really know it's that simple? Is it really that necessary, for that matter? In an event, anything less than full fuel for anything other than a known inbound strike on that field is not a likely desired amount. That plane would have took off with that amount and would likely keep it. In the MA, where nothing mimics real life, then changing the fuel capacity on a re-arm pad would be no big deal.
-
well, coding something besides the simplistic rearm/refuel to the rearm pad probably isn't as simple as i'm thinking it would be, but if someone were to do it, eliminating the graphics (hangar, guns, bombs, drop tanks) and presenting nothing more than a text list of options would be far easier.
now that you mention it, i think i'm going to bend the ears of cm staff members about fuel options in special events...all of them.
-
"The first Spitfire modified to carry bombs was a Malta based VC, EP201, which was able to carry one 250 lb (110 kg) bomb under each wing. In a note to the Air Ministry Air Vice Marshal Keith Park wrote "[w]e designed the bomb gear so that there was no loss of performance when the bombs were dropped. Unlike the Hurricane bomb gear our Spitfire throws away all external fittings with the exception of a steel rib which protrudes less than one inch from the wing.*"
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x224/ausflyboy/spit.jpg)
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x224/ausflyboy/spit20a.jpg)
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x224/ausflyboy/spit20b.jpg)
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,36549.0.html
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JRz1XvY46cE/UkO9uHAcrmI/AAAAAAAApoE/FjAJBTaqsko/s640/10.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d98Pc3rPvGw/UkO772rzDZI/AAAAAAAApm0/xXZZlhWAxkM/s1600/2.jpg)
(http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8702/s2custom2ir2.jpg)
Yes, engine off. Simple enough. 'Must turn engine off to change or reload ordinance.'
-
Yes, engine off. Simple enough. 'Must turn engine off to change or reload ordinance.'
:neener: glad you understand that concept.
i have an idea about the fuel...a compromise maybe...if fuel load out is to be changed from original take off value (not including drop tank), it should take at least an additional 60 seconds for the loadout to be completed.
the reason being, ole goober originally took off with 75% fuel, did his thing and is out of ammo but he still has 50-60% fuel load and now the base he is rearming at is suddenly getting attacked, now he wants to change his fuel load to 25% fuel so he can feel good about himself thinking he now has a better chance to fight the vulchers.
to make the change in his fuel load, the fuel in his plane has to be siphoned and siphoning fuel takes longer than adding fuel... :P
in the case where goober is rearming and was out of fuel and wants to now change his take off fuel load, same thing...filling up takes time and the base supply officer is pissy about fuel allocations being correct.
-
Yes the re-arm pad can be changed in many interesting ways. It's main use is bending perception though, i.e getting name in lights.
Upon landing why don't we just allow players to enter how many kills they want to be displayed as getting in a sortie and be done with it?
-
Yes the re-arm pad can be changed in many interesting ways. It's main use is bending perception though, i.e getting name in lights.
Upon landing why don't we just allow players to enter how many kills they want to be displayed as getting in a sortie and be done with it?
:huh
So what I've both suggested and supported others suggesting was always about MA glory messages and not
what I said it was about? Go figure. Thanks for bending that perception back to where it was 'supposed' to be.
:aok :D
-
:neener: glad you understand that concept.
i have an idea about the fuel...a compromise maybe...if fuel load out is to be changed from original take off value (not including drop tank), it should take at least an additional 60 seconds for the loadout to be completed.
the reason being, ole goober originally took off with 75% fuel, did his thing and is out of ammo but he still has 50-60% fuel load and now the base he is rearming at is suddenly getting attacked, now he wants to change his fuel load to 25% fuel so he can feel good about himself thinking he now has a better chance to fight the vulchers.
to make the change in his fuel load, the fuel in his plane has to be siphoned and siphoning fuel takes longer than adding fuel... :P
in the case where goober is rearming and was out of fuel and wants to now change his take off fuel load, same thing...filling up takes time and the base supply officer is pissy about fuel allocations being correct.
Which also requires additional code. May as well code in that fuel cannot be reduced and offer the option of either increasing fuel or leaving it alone (which, I believe, is really close to your suggestion that fuel options not be offered what-so-ever).
I'm good with that if you are. :) :cheers:
-
i have an idea about the fuel...a compromise maybe...if fuel load out is to be changed from original take off value (not including drop tank), it should take at least an additional 60 seconds for the loadout to be completed.
I'd say it should just check against current load and adjust the time accordingly if that's the route it goes down. If you're adding more fuel than you have, standard time.
the reason being, ole goober originally took off with 75% fuel, did his thing and is out of ammo but he still has 50-60% fuel load and now the base he is rearming at is suddenly getting attacked, now he wants to change his fuel load to 25% fuel so he can feel good about himself thinking he now has a better chance to fight the vulchers.
It's not a complete waste of time. With plenty of the high capacity planes, fighting low at 100% is a major disadvantage. On a spixteen or LA, not so much.
Other than the fuel, I still really don't see much need for it even in scenarios. If it doesn't allow installation of bomb racks on the rearm pad if they're not already there (which it shouldn't) what is gained that you wouldn't have if you just upped heavy on your first sortie and ditched ord when you could?
Wiley.
-
It's not a complete waste of time. With plenty of the high capacity planes, fighting low at 100% is a major disadvantage. On a spixteen or LA, not so much.
Wiley.
if it's a plane with a piss poor power to weight ratio like a p40, i would agree. everything else, not so much. even a jug with 100% fuel can be handled in a knife fight if a person knows what he's doing...or is very lucky.
-
i think i figured out a compromise. for ma use only...give people their gamey rearm/refuel options.
after 2 new destroyable static objects can be added to the maps...refueling trucks/wagons and ordnance trucks/wagons at the rearming pad. they can be taken out by bombs or gun fire with the same hardness and down time as field ack with the provision that if base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have been porked, they don't respawn until after the base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have popped. as long as the fuel and ords trucks/wagons are down, the rearm pad is non functional.
whatcha fellers think about that?
-
i think i figured out a compromise. for ma use only...give people their gamey rearm/refuel options.
after 2 new destroyable static objects can be added to the maps...refueling trucks/wagons and ordnance trucks/wagons at the rearming pad. they can be taken out by bombs or gun fire with the same hardness and down time as field ack with the provision that if base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have been porked, they don't respawn until after the base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have popped. as long as the fuel and ords trucks/wagons are down, the rearm pad is non functional.
whatcha fellers think about that?
Interesting. More coding still .... but interesting.
-
i think i figured out a compromise. for ma use only...give people their gamey rearm/refuel options.
after 2 new destroyable static objects can be added to the maps...refueling trucks/wagons and ordnance trucks/wagons at the rearming pad. they can be taken out by bombs or gun fire with the same hardness and down time as field ack with the provision that if base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have been porked, they don't respawn until after the base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have popped. as long as the fuel and ords trucks/wagons are down, the rearm pad is non functional.
whatcha fellers think about that?
Hmmm.
:headscratch:
You have my interest.
-
:headscratch: poop it would require every ma map being reworked just to get the new static objects put in at all the airbases...and there are a lot of airbases.
-
:headscratch: poop it would require every ma map being reworked just to get the new static objects put in at all the airbases...and there are a lot of airbases.
The airbases are just a special collection of objects. If they change/add stuff to the group (like they did with the 88's and AT guns), there is no map re-work that needs to be done. The objects will update themselves just fine. HTC might have to re-build the terrain, but they shouldn't have to manually touch each and every base.
-
interesting!!! thanks Imadot. then, if i'm not totally out of my mind, they have fuel trucks already modeled as static objects in tank towns. wonder how much trouble it would be to make them destructible objects and place them at the rearm pad.
-
+1Why not Repairs? :D
-1
Theres a big difference in minor maintenance and battle damge reair. The problems you encounter in AH are all battle damage.
-
Wow!
This is an interesting topic from both sides of the issue. Yes, it world be awesome to make exterior changes to your aircraft in real time. But the real question is this. Once you're out of the hangar you are in real time. I would think that the process of hanging ord and loading fuel is a pre-stored code function or calculated before runtime.
It would be as if you are running in real time and compiling coded at the same time. That is heavy lifting in the code writing world. Not to say that at some point it couldn't be done. But I am pretty sure that there are no existing functions like this in the game already.
Someone would need to write a new engine and code base for this to happen. One where all aircraft profiles have access to all addons in certain conditions. Definitely an code base and engine forklift.
Start saving your money now. I am sure that some functions will need to be off loaded to you're local CPUs for the recompile or calculations. You better beef up your PC before when that happens.
Thinking even farther... There must be a cache created once you lift the first time with your first load. The calculations of score, and all other factors need to be held somewhere. I wonder if you would have to create a new cache for the additional addons of the same flight or try and manipulate the current. Either way your going to need a workstation class PC to handle the load and overhead.
-
:huh
-
:huh :headscratch:
Wow!
This is an interesting topic from both sides of the issue. Yes, it world be awesome to make exterior changes to your aircraft in real time. But the real question is this. Once you're out of the hangar you are in real time. I would think that the process of hanging ord and loading fuel is a pre-stored code function or calculated before runtime.
It would be as if you are running in real time and compiling coded at the same time. That is heavy lifting in the code writing world. Not to say that at some point it couldn't be done. But I am pretty sure that there are no existing functions like this in the game already.
Someone would need to write a new engine and code base for this to happen. One where all aircraft profiles have access to all addons in certain conditions. Definitely an code base and engine forklift.
Start saving your money now. I am sure that some functions will need to be off loaded to you're local CPUs for the recompile or calculations. You better beef up your PC before when that happens.
Thinking even farther... There must be a cache created once you lift the first time with your first load. The calculations of score, and all other factors need to be held somewhere. I wonder if you would have to create a new cache for the additional addons of the same flight or try and manipulate the current. Either way your going to need a workstation class PC to handle the load and overhead.
uh...how do you figure that? it would just be a matter of hooking the rearm pad into the hangar assets if certain conditions exist. a list interface wouldn't be as much work as a full hangar type gui. tab, click, enter...wait 60 seconds for message then taxi out.
-
I think during reload (should be longer than 30 secs.), the
pilot should have option to go to the O'Club, grab a sammich or 2 and a coffee.
Take a leak/dump.
All this while plane is getting rearmed, refueled.
:cheers: Oz
-
I think during reload (should be longer than 30 secs.), the
pilot should have option to go to the O'Club, grab a sammich or 2 and a coffee.
Take a leak/dump.
All this while plane is getting rearmed, refueled.
:cheers: Oz
I already do that.
-
I can't understand that you can't get your aircraft repaired while sitting on a rearm pad for 30 sec.
But....if you click on the vehicle supply icon out in the middle of nowhere....your tiger's gun, track, pintle gun, engine, radio, dry compost toilet, and microwave oven are all magically fixed instantly.
-
I can't understand that you can't get your aircraft repaired while sitting on a rearm pad for 30 sec.
But....if you click on the vehicle supply icon out in the middle of nowhere....your tiger's gun, track, pintle gun, engine, radio, dry compost toilet, and microwave oven are all magically fixed instantly.
the ground crew is too busy putting in gas and rearming your plane to run and get you new wings, ailerons, elevators, rudders and engine...ran out of duct tape last month too.
-
The point is that 'one sortie' means just that, and the stats would mean less if no penalty for a plane part getting shot off.
One sortie, one plane, amo and fuel is different from damage.
New plane means new sortie!
I can see having how much fuel is added, when re-arming, as an option, but not repairs...