Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Widewing on March 04, 2014, 02:15:54 AM
-
Please.... What we have now can be strafed down with ease. Ordnance bunkers were usually made of reinforced concrete, and then buried under earth. Ordnance bunkers should be harder than hangers, wouldn't you think?
One other thing... Any time I jump into an 88 on a base, it always starts pointing in the opposite direction of the approaching enemy. Why is that?
How about an M2 90mm American anti-aircraft gun, firing VT fuzed rounds? The radar layed M2 was the best land based anti-aircraft gun of the war.
-
One other thing... Any time I jump into an 88 on a base, it always starts pointing in the opposite direction of the approaching enemy. Why is that?
It is always pointing north by default. Simply giving the 88 it's (RL) ability to traverse in high gear should be very helpful
How about an M2 90mm American anti-aircraft gun, firing VT fuzed rounds? The radar layed M2 was the best land based anti-aircraft gun of the war.
I really, really abhorr the thought of having proximity fused manned AA guns on land bases.
-
Agree snailman +1
-
Please.... What we have now can be strafed down with ease. Ordnance bunkers were usually made of reinforced concrete, and then buried under earth. Ordnance bunkers should be harder than hangers, wouldn't you think?
One other thing... Any time I jump into an 88 on a base, it always starts pointing in the opposite direction of the approaching enemy. Why is that?
How about an M2 90mm American anti-aircraft gun, firing VT fuzed rounds? The radar layed M2 was the best land based anti-aircraft gun of the war.
My wish thread from 5 years ago.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=278048.0
ack-ack
-
+1 to harder bunkers.
-1 to the fused AA guns on a base . If they will be anything close to the navy 5" guns it will be a nightmare. we want to promote air combat, not having players in groung guns pointing and clicking.
-
Ofc they must be hardened : How comes enough MG bullets can kill a ..."bunker" ? :mad:
-
What weight of a bomb, bombs and or number of rockets were you thinking about to destroy an ord bunker?
I could see a 500 pound'er since that was the most common size bomb if I remember right.
-
Thoughts off the top
It would be cool if we had different types of damage; bomb/rocket and bullet <30mm. That way, you could not strafe an ord bunker, but you could take it out with a 250 lb'er.
Or, have reduced damage for guns against structures, say x 0.5 or less. That way, it would take more than a pass or two to take them out.
-
The VT fuzed AAA ammunition wasn't used in the ETO until near the very end of hostilities and in very limited quantities. Eisenhower feared the technology falling into enemy hands.
It was used from mid 44 on in the PTO with great results. And if you think 5" guns are effective now, correctly modeled VT ammo would blow it away. The fuzes sent out radio signals which would detonate the warhead when a reflection was received. IOWs, you wouldn't have to use your mouse or keyboard to match range when firing at enemy AC. You would only need worry about leading the target correctly.
-
And if you think 5" guns are effective now, correctly modeled VT ammo would blow it away. The fuzes sent out radio signals which would detonate the warhead when a reflection was received. IOWs, you wouldn't have to use your mouse or keyboard to match range when firing at enemy AC. You would only need worry about leading the target correctly.
This leaves me a bit confused, as our manned 5" guns already use proximity fuzes that work this way. Shell get's close = boom.
-
This leaves me a bit confused, as our manned 5" guns already use proximity fuzes that work this way. Shell get's close = boom.
No, you adjust when the shell detonates using inputs; ie. you want it to explode at a range of 5000 yards you adjust before firing.
If the VT fuze was modeled in AH correctly, that is one step you wouldn't need to accomplish. Just point the gun with the right lead and boom.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm
-
No, you adjust when the shell detonates using inputs; ie. you want it to explode at a range of 5000 yards you adjust before firing.
If the VT fuze was modeled in AH correctly, that is one step you wouldn't need to accomplish. Just point the gun with the right lead and boom.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm
What do you adjust? In the 5" you just lead and press fire...
-
What do you adjust? In the 5" you just lead and press fire...
I could be mistaken - I thought you adjusted range. I don't use them much - more of a fighter guy.
-
I could be mistaken - I thought you adjusted range.
Nope, just point & shoot. That's why they are so extremely powerful compared to the land based 88 we have, in which you indeed have to set range before firing.
-
I love these discussions/debates.
First, investigate how the damage dealt by the different ordnance. Bombs, rockets, and HE shells (and AP) are all scaled, to a degree, based on the objects (OBJ) available to destroy. I can post the damages if need be.
Likewise, each of the OBJ have a hardness setting. HTC has scaled, it appears, the different OBJ based on the amount of damage they believe needed to allow the widest range of aircraft and gv's able to get the job done. Ever notice that it take two rounds of HE from a King Tiger all the way down to the lowly Panzer IV F/1 to bring down a typical OBJ (ammo bunker, radar tower, fuel tank, barrack, town building)? Mind you, the M4/76mm, M18, and Firefly all need 3 rounds due to their lackluster HE round, kudos to HTC for modeling that correctly. :aok Yet, the King Tiger, Tiger, and T34/85 all do 234 lbs of damage to the typical 156 lbs of damage (Panzer IV, Panther, T34/76, etc). The M4/75 does 178 lbs of damage. Point being, HTC has tiered the damage system to try and keep things "level", to a point. Now when going up against a hanger or other such OBJ (shore batteries, HQ, etc), the M4/75mm is supreme thanks to its 178lbs of damage and 4 second reload rate. The Tiger is next in line, then T34/85, then King Tiger, respectively due to their reload rates. So the heavier calibers are only really given their due against the larger OBJ.
I believe HTC should almost start from scratch in terms of OBJ hardness settings. Each OBJ should get a different hardness setting based on how fragile it would really be. A reinforced concrete bunker should NOT have to worry about most guns, cep't maybe the IL-2, Hurricane IID, and Stuka G-2. :aok
-
For me, the 5" are way deadlier in close but I feel like I do better in the 88 at longer ranges because I can see each detonation and adjust lead.
-
I am not sure I like the idea of proximity fused guns at an airfield. :headscratch:
-
It is always pointing north by default. Simply giving the 88 it's (RL) ability to traverse in high gear should be very helpful
I really, really abhorr the thought of having proximity fused manned AA guns on land bases.
Agreed, I don't want any proximity fused weapons on bases, it takes the challenge away. I am fine with proximity fuses for 5in on naval vessels, but not for base guns.
+1 for the hardened ordnance bunkers though. :salute
-
For me, the 5" are way deadlier in close but I feel like I do better in the 88 at longer ranges because I can see each detonation and adjust lead.
If you get the hang of the trajectory, when a 5in round 'explodes' it means you are really close/dead on. Making getting kills extremely easy when you know what you are doing. However, with the 88 you have to know when to fire, the length of time it takes the round to explode at the range you want it to go off at, and where the plane will be when that round explodes. With the 5in it's literally point and click.
:salute
-
The VT fuzed AAA ammunition wasn't used in the ETO until near the very end of hostilities and in very limited quantities. Eisenhower feared the technology falling into enemy hands.
Only over land in Europe, otherwise it was in use on navy warships patrolling the Atlantic.
ack-ack
-
Only over land in Europe, otherwise it was in use on navy warships patrolling the Atlantic.
ack-ack
Agreed, thanks for the clarification. I think the Germans would have a difficult time recovering a fuze from the Atlantic and likely weighed in on the decision.
-
Many WWII bases didn't have bunkers... They had ordnance dumps, arrayed around a base at a safe distance. In some cases, the dumps were more than a mile from the airfield. Different sized bombs in different dumps. They were usually heavily netted and camouflaged. Where bunkers were constructed, they were usually made from cast reinforced concrete, and then covered with earth to hide them from view. When the 9th AF fighters moved to France in July of 1944, they would store ordnance in barns, in the woods or anywhere else easily hidden from aerial view.
Having the dumps hidden obviously won't work in the game. So, if everyone knows where the ordnance is, it seems that the bunkers should be hardened to make it difficult to blow up as an offset to being hidden.
Another thing to keep in mind. Hardening the bunkers may have a significant affect on game play. Today, any three day noob can take a 190A-8 and kill the ordnance at three airfields with guns alone. The impact on game play is substantial. If each bunker required 2,000 lb of bombs to kill, a single fighter would be hard pressed to be able to kill more than one per reload. Bump it up to VH hardness and you'll need bombs and rockets to kill one bunker, assuming perfect aim. What this does, is eliminate the griefers porking ordnance, simply because they want to have a negative impact on the game.
One more thing... When dumps do explode, it might be interesting to define a blast radius of, say, 200 and 600 yards. Anything flying within 200 yards is blown up. Anything within 600 yards takes random damage (regardless if being friend or foe). With that in mind, shouldn't rearm pads be at risk? Obviously, there's ordnance there.
-
You could throw the Radar in with this wish as well. Push it up out of a single MG-Canon pass.
I would not be totally against 2000 pound ord destruction rating. I would be more for a rating that would take a thousand pound'er and say 3 US rockets. That would take two good passes to take out the ords on a small field.
With the radar upped to say 600 pounds a P47 heavy could take out the radar, and both ammo bunkers with three perfect passes. Quite a challenge.
-
I think the Germans would have a difficult time recovering a fuze from the Atlantic and likely weighed in on the decision.
That's exactly why it was used on navy ships before land forces got their grubby hands on them.
ack-ack
-
You could throw the Radar in with this wish as well. Push it up out of a single MG-Canon pass.
I would not be totally against 2000 pound ord destruction rating. I would be more for a rating that would take a thousand pound'er and say 3 US rockets. That would take two good passes to take out the ords on a small field.
With the radar upped to say 600 pounds a P47 heavy could take out the radar, and both ammo bunkers with three perfect passes. Quite a challenge.
Why should radar be hardened? This is a picture of some of the Chain Home (CH) radar towers, as you can see a strafing airplane would be able to take one out or with even a small bomb like a 250lb bomb.
(http://www.doramusic.com/Chain%20Home.jpg)
There is no reason to make the radar more tough than it is currently.
ack-ack
-
I'm fine with hardening ords bunker if there were less of them and it took at least a 2k of damage to kill. As for prox fuse on on air fields and VBs; only if there was only one on either. Anymore would be nuts considering how many 88s a field has now and they don't have ProxFuse. 1 prox 2-3 88s for a large airfield wouldn't be bad idea. The 88s are for the must part not used now (though if that faster gear thing was implemented that probably would change).
-
-1 to the fused AA guns on a base . If they will be anything close to the navy 5" guns it will be a nightmare. we want to promote air combat, not having players in groung guns pointing and clicking.
I with there was a way to make proxy fuses in the game work *only* when near bombers and other ords trucks. Then the gunners could defend the CV/hangars better but not interfere in the dogfight.
-
+1 on the Ord bunkers, nothing short of 2000 lbs to take them out. As to the number at each base, 2, 3, 4. While we're at it add an additional VH at each base for a total of 2 at all bases except VBases. :bolt:
-
Another thing to keep in mind. Hardening the bunkers may have a significant affect on game play. Today, any three day noob can take a 190A-8 and kill the ordnance at three airfields with guns alone. The impact on game play is substantial. If each bunker required 2,000 lb of bombs to kill, a single fighter would be hard pressed to be able to kill more than one per reload. Bump it up to VH hardness and you'll need bombs and rockets to kill one bunker, assuming perfect aim. What this does, is eliminate the griefers porking ordnance, simply because they want to have a negative impact on the game.
One more thing... When dumps do explode, it might be interesting to define a blast radius of, say, 200 and 600 yards. 200 Anything flying within yards is blown up. Anything within 600 yards takes random damage (regardless if being friend or foe). With that in mind, shouldn't rearm pads be at risk? Obviously, there's ordnance there.[/quote]
:aok +1 :old:
LtngRydr
-
Why should radar be hardened? This is a picture of some of the Chain Home (CH) radar towers, as you can see a strafing airplane would be able to take one out or with even a small bomb like a 250lb bomb.
(http://www.doramusic.com/Chain%20Home.jpg)
There is no reason to make the radar more tough than it is currently.
ack-ack
AH fighter hangars look like the type of construction that wouldn't stand up to a few .303s, yet take almost 3,000 pounds to take down.
-
+1 to the tougher ammo bunkers
-
So if you get the bunker and possibly other objects hardened up to defeat peak time player efforts, what happens to off peak time players? Is your request in response to peak time hoard efforts, or to the result of a tiny number of off peak energizer bunnies with nothing else to do?
-
+1. What we have are not hardened bunkers.
-
My only issue with this is it favors the attackers and not the defenders.
BTW, established airdromes had hardened bunkers - not so much at others.
-
If the bunkers and radar were just taken out of the range of a gun down that would help.